This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
AND lack of confidence in my translation ^_^): - That the certificates of authorization issued to Pangasinan Transport would be valid only for a period of 25 years counted from the date of promulgation - That the company may be acquired by the Philippine Commonwealth with proper payment of the cost price of its equipment, taking into account reasonable depreciation to be fixed by the Commission at the time of it acquisition. - October 9, 1939 – PTI did not agree with the conditions set by PSC so it filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the latter. - November 20, 1939 - The present petition for a writ of certiorari was instituted in this court praying that: - An order be issued directing the secretary of the Public Service Commission to certify forthwith to this court the records of all proceedings in the case. - After hearing, the Court should render a decision declaring section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 454 unconstitutional and void - If this court should be of the opinion that section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 454 is constitutional, a decision should be rendered declaring that the provisions are not applicable to valid and subsisting certificates issued prior to June 8, 1939. - Section 15 of Commonwealth Act No. 146, as amended by section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 454 states that “no public service shall operate in the Philippines without possessing a valid and subsisting certificate from the Public Service Commission” and that “the Commission may prescribe as a condition for the issuance of the certificate provided in the preceding paragraph that the service can be acquired by the Commonwealth of the Philippines or by any instrumentality thereof upon payment of the cost price of its useful equipment, less reasonable depreciation; and likewise, that the certificate shall valid only for a definite period of time; and that the violation of any of these conditions shall produce the immediate cancellation of the certificate without the necessity of any express action on the part of the Commission.” ISSUE WON the conditions set by the Public Service Commission were valid (as mandated by Commonwealth Act 146) HELD YES but a remand of the case was
I. HISTORICAL CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION INC. v PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 70 PHIL 221 LAUREL; June 26, 1940 NATURE Petition for review on certiorari FACTS - For the past 20 years, Pangasinan Transport has been engaged in the business of transporting in Pangasinan, Tarlac and Nueva Ecija through TPU buses in accordance with the terms and conditions of the certificates of public convenience issued by the Public Utility Commission (later called Public Service Commission). - August 26, 1939 – PTI applied for an authorization to operate ten additional Brockway trucks on the ground that they were needed to comply with the terms and conditions of its existing certificates and as a result of the application of the Eight Hour Labor Law. This was granted by the Public Service Commission with the following conditions (which are written in a beautiful language called Spanish so you may refer to the original text in the case if there is a
Administrative Law Dean Carlota
a certificate that it "shall be valid only for a definite period of time" and, in section 16 (a) that "no such certificates shall be issued for a period of more than fifty years," the National Assembly meant to give effect to this constitutional mandate. - All that has been delegated to the Commission, therefore, is the administrative function, involving the use discretion, to carry out the will of the National Assembly having in view, in addition, the promotion of "public interests in a proper and suitable manner." - The petitioner is mistaken in the suggestion that, simply because its existing certificates had been granted before June 8, 1939, the date when Commonwealth Act No. 454, amendatory of section 15 of Commonwealth Act No. 146, was approved, it must be deemed to have the right of holding them in perpetuity. The Constitution of the Philippines provided, in section 8 of Article XIII, that "no franchise or right shall be granted to any individual, firm, or corporation, except under the condition that it shall be subject to amendment, alteration, or repeal by the National Assembly when the public interest so requires." This is in accordance with all other previous laws (such as the Jones Law and the Philippine Bill) on the matter. - Statutes enacted for the regulation of public utilities, being a proper exercise by the state of its police power, are applicable not only to those public utilities coming into existence after its passage, but likewise to those already established and in operation. - Commonwealth Acts Nos. 146 and 454 are not only the organic acts of the Public Service Commission but are "a part of the charter of every utility company operating or seeking to operate a franchise" in the Philippines. - However the Court ordered a remand of the case. - The petitioner's application here was for an increase of its equipment to enable it to comply with the conditions of its certificates of public convenience. - On the matter of limitation to twenty five (25) years of the life of its certificates of public convenience, there had been neither notice nor opportunity given the petitioner to be heard or present evidence. Disposition The decision appealed from is hereby reversed and the case remanded to the Public Service Commission for further proceedings in accordance with law and this decision, without any pronouncement regarding costs.
ordered Reasoning - The condition that the Commission can acquire PTI is a restatement of the constitutional provision that the “State may, in the interest of national welfare and defense, establish and operate industries and means of transportation and communication, and, upon payment of just compensation, transfer to public ownership utilities and other private enterprises to be operated by the Government.” - PTI assails the condition that the certificates will be valid only for a period of time. This should be construed with the mandate that the Public Service Commission should issue certifications with the public interest in mind. Thus the period for validity is established in relation to promoting and safeguarding public interest. - Section 8 of Article XIII of the Constitution provides, among other things, that no franchise, certificate, or any other form of authorization for the operation of a public utility shall be "for a longer period than fifty years." - When it was ordained, in section 15 of Commonwealth Act No. 146, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 454, that the Public Service Commission may prescribe as a condition for the issuance of
Administrative Law Dean Carlota
MANILA ELECTRIC v PASAY TRANSPO 57 PHIL 600 MALCOLM ; NOV 25, 1932 FACTS -Act No. 1446 granted a franchise to Charles M. Swift to “construct, maintain, and operate an electric railway, and to construct, maintain, and operate an electric light, heat, and power system from a point in the City of Manila in an easterly direction to the town in Pasig, in the Province of Rizal." -Section 11 of the Act provides: "Whenever any franchise or right of way is granted to any other person or corporation, now or hereafter in existence, over portions of the lines and tracks of the grantee herein, the terms on which said other person or corporation shall use such right of way, and the compensation to be paid to the grantee herein by such other person or corporation for said use, shall be fixed by the members of the Supreme Court, sitting as a board of arbitrators, the decision of a majority of whom shall be final." - Manila Electric now asks the members of the Supreme Court, sitting as a board of arbitrators, to fix the terms upon which certain transportation companies shall be permitted to use the Pasig bridge of
the Manila Electric Company and the compensation to be paid to the Manila Electric Company by such transportation companies ISSUE/S WON the members of the SC has legal right to act as board of arbitrators HELD NO - Section 11 of Act No. 1446 contravenes the maxims which guide the operation of a democratic government constitutionally established, and that it would be improper and illegal for the members of the Supreme Court, sitting as a board of arbitrators, the decision of a majority of whom shall be final, to act on the petition of the Manila Electric Company. -The Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands represents one of the three divisions of power in our government. It is judicial power and judicial power only which is exercised by the Supreme Court. Just as the Supreme Court, as the guardian of constitutional rights, should not sanction usurpations by any other department of the government, so should it as strictly confine its own sphere of influence to the powers expressly or by implication conferred on it by the Organic Act. The Supreme Court and its members should not and cannot be required to exercise any power or to perform any trust or to assume any duty not pertaining to or connected with the administering of judicial functions. -The Organic Act provides that the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands shall possess and exercise jurisdiction as heretofore provided and such additional jurisdiction as shall hereafter be prescribed by law. When the Organic Act speaks of the exercise of "jurisdiction" by the Supreme Court, it could only mean the exercise of "jurisdiction" by the Supreme Court acting as a court, and could hardly mean the exercise of "jurisdiction" by the members of the Supreme Court, sitting as a board of arbitrators. There is an important distinction between the Supreme Court as an entity and the members of the Supreme Court. A board of arbitrators is not a "court" in any proper sense of the term, and possess none of the jurisdiction which the Organic Act contemplates shall be exercised by the Supreme Court. Disposition The members of the Supreme Court decline to proceed further in the matter. NOBLEJAS v TEEHANKEE 23 SCRA 405
ISSUE: WON the Commissioner of Land Registration may only be investigated by the Supreme Court. In their answer respondents admit the facts but denied that petitioner. "by authority of the President". as Land Registration Commissioner. as it would be in violation of the principle of the separation of powers. the said Commissioner is declared "entitled to the same compensation. A. therefore. petitioner was "hereby suspended. Noblejas received a communication signed by the Executive Secretary. . or in fact a member of the Judiciary. the papers relative to his case should be submitted to the Supreme Court.On March 17. or that the petitioner may be considered a Judge of First Instance within the purview of the Judiciary Act and Revised Rules of Court 140. much less shown. 1968. Noblejas is the duly appointed. claiming lack of jurisdiction and abuse of discretion. emoluments and privileges as those of a Judge of the Court of First Instance. 296) and Revised Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. for -4- ." and it is nowhere claimed. .Antonio H. confirmed and qualified Commissioner of Land Registration. exercises judicial functions. that the Commissioner of Land Registration is a District Judge.petitioner's theory that the grant of "privileges of a Judge of First Instance" includes by implication the right to be investigated only by the Supreme Court and to be suspended or removed upon its recommendation. specifically recites that "No District Judge shall be separated or removed from office by the President of the Philippines unless sufficient cause shall exist in the judgment of the Supreme Court . consolidation and consolidatedsubdivision plans covering areas greatly in excess of the areas covered by the original titles. HELD: NO . No.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 action thereon conformably to section 67 of the Judiciary Act (R. Sec of Justice Teehankee coursed to Noblejas a letter requiring him to explain in writing why no disciplinary action should be taken against petitioner for "approving or recommending approval of subdivision. 1968 NATURE: Petition for writ of prohibition with preliminary injunction FACTS: . upon receipt hereof. 1968. . based on "finding that a prima facie case exists against you for gross negligence and conduct prejudicial to the public interest".On March 7. reiterating the contentions advanced in his letter to the Secretary of Justice. pending investigation of the above charges." . emoluments and compensation of a Judge of the Court of First Instance. 1968.section 67 of the Judiciary Act providing for investigation. whereby. he could only be suspended and investigated in the same manner as a Judge of the Courts of First Instance. would necessarily result in the same right being possessed by a variety of executive officials upon whom the Legislature REYES JBL. as he enjoyed the rank. that the Legislature may not charge the judiciary with nonjudicial functions or duties except when reasonably incidental to the fulfillment of judicial duties.On March 18. that the function of investigating charges against public officers is administrative or executive in nature. in view of the conferment upon him by RA 1151 and Appropriation Laws of the rank and privileges of a Judge of the Court of First Instance. and praying for restraining writs. By the terms of section 2 of RA 1151. and. April 29. petitioner applied to this Court. suspension or removal of Judges." . ." Noblejas answered and apprised the Secretary of Justice that. privileges.
55 and 58 thereof. without being extended a formal detail. Disposition Writs denied. sec.such unusual corollaries could not have been intended by the Legislature when it granted these executive officials the rank and privileges of Judges of First Instance. due to several delays in securing the court sala (unavailability of funds for office equipment and supplies. par. which he accepted. since it would violate the fundamental doctrine of separation of powers. respondent judge took his oath of office on June 1970. violation of RA 296. particularly Secs 5. and these Justices are only removable by the Legislature. could not be removed by the latter. another appointee of the President. At the time of appointment.if the Legislature had really intended to include in the general grant of "privileges" or "rank and privileges of Judges of the Court of First Instance" the right to be investigated by the Supreme Court. 2). . respondent was charged by Paz Garcia for “dishonesty. .Having taken his oath as District Judge and. However. he was Chief of the Technical Staff of the DOJ. Reasoning He has not yet started performing any judicial functions. After confirmation of his appointment by the COA. Where the legislative design is to make the suspension or removal procedure prescribed for Judges of First Instance applicable to other officers. The Sec. and simultaneously reducing pro tanto the control of the Chief Executive over such officials. since the Appropriation Acts confer upon the Solicitor General the rank and privileges of a Justice of the Court of Appeals. then such grant of privileges would be unconstitutional. of Justice. by charging -5- . drawing salary as judge but without performing his functions as such.Incidentally. requested him to assist him. . he decided to apply for an extended leave of absence. instead. petition dismissed GARCIA v MACARAIG 39 SCRA 106 BARREDO.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 this court with the administrative function of supervisory control over executive officials. That he could not actually hold office in the court to which he was appointed was not of his making. ***While the SC dismissed the complaint. it nevertheless expressed the opinion that it did not look with favor the long standing practice of had indiscriminately conferred the same privileges. asked him to forego his leave and. for all of them contemplate judges who are actually holding trials and hearings and making decisions and others. None of these laws and circulars apply to him. trouble securing the space for the courtroom due to objections and disagreement over price). provision to that effect is made in plain and unequivocal language.gross incompetence. in 1970. MAY 31. 24. ISSUE WON respondent is guilty of the allegations HELD No.. petitioner's stand would also lead to the conclusion that the Solicitor General. After realizing that it might take sometime before he could actually begin hearing cases in his court. and to be suspended or removed only upon recommendation of that Court. he never had the chance to actually perform the functions of a district judge. violation of his oath of office as judge. 1971 NATURE Administrative complaint FACTS -Respondent Judge Macaraig was appointed to one of the newly created CFI branches in Laguna. through the process of impeachment (Judiciary Act. . receiving salary therefrom. however. .
Article VIII. may I have the honor to request for the issuance by the Honorable Supreme Court of a Resolution. Disposition Administrative complaint DISMISSED. final or judge who may be found to have committed abuses in the discharge of his duties and refer the same to proper authority for appropriate action.7. their own welfare and the promulgation of rules and regulations to better carry out the policy of the legislature or such as are devolved upon the administrative agency by the organic law of its existence. 1988 NATURE Request for the issuance of a SC Resolution on the appointment of Judge Manzano as a member of the Prov. and will not in any way amount to an abandonment of my present position as Executive Judge and as a member of the Judiciary. Committee on Justice FACTS -6- . Article IX (B). Administrative functions are those which involve the regulation and control over the conduct and affairs of individuals for. or of the second paragraph of Section . (2) Considering my membership in the Committee as neither violative of the Independence of the Judiciary nor a violation of Section 12. reveals that Provincial/City Committees on Justice are created to insure the speedy disposition of cases of detainees. Bangui.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 -On 4 July 1988. jail warden. Manzano.Recommend revision of any law or regulation which is believed prejudicial to the proper administration of criminal justice. October 5. sent this Court a letter which reads: …I was designated as a member of the Ilocos Norte Provincial Committee on Justice… Before I may accept the appointment and enter in the discharge of the powers and duties of the position as member of the Provincial Committee on Justice. HELD judges being detailed in the DOJ to assist the Secretary even if it were only in connection with his work of exercising administrative authority over the courts. and (3) Consider my membership in the said Committee as part of the primary functions of an Executive Judge. it is provided that ”The Provincial/City Committees on Justice shall be under the supervision of the Secretary of justice Quarterly accomplishment reports shall be submitted to the Office of the Secretary of Justice”. Among the functions of the Committee are: -. -. stressing the principle of separation of powers. IN RE: DESIGNATION OF JUDGE RODOLFO U. . as follows: (1) Authorizing me to accept the appointment and to as assume and discharge the powers and duties attached to the said position. both of the Constitution.Furthermore. using his experience as technical assistant in said office. . Under the circumstances he was placed in. MANZANO AS MEMBER OF THE ILOCOS NORTE PROVINCIAL COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE 166 SCRA 106 PADILLA. as amended. RTC. thus alleviating jail congestion and improving local jail conditions.An examination of Executive Order No. particularly those involving the poor and indigent ones. Executive Judge. The Court was of the opinion that respondent was not guilty of dishonesty or violation of his oath of office as district judge as it was not altogether his fault that he could not actually perform his functions as presiding judge of the CFI of Laguna. Ilocos Norte.It is evident that such Provincial/City Committees on Justice perform administrative functions. he made himself available to the DOJ to assist the Secretary. Branch 19. Judge Rodolfo U. 856. .Receive complaints against any apprehending officer.
.This declaration does not mean that RTC Judges should adopt an attitude of monastic insensibility or unbecoming indifference to Province/City Committee on Justice."Administrative functions" as used in Section 12 refers to the executive machinery of government and the performance by that machinery of governmental acts.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 . the members of the Supreme Court and other courts established by law shall not be designated to any agency performing quasijudicial or administrative functions . The issue involved in this case is where to draw the line insofar as administrative functions are concerned. Macaraig: While the doctrine of separation of powers is a relative theory not to be enforced with pedantic rigor.membership in the Provincial or City Committee on Justice would not involve any regulation or control over the conduct and affairs of individuals. they form part of the structure of government. It is indispensable that there be no exception to the rigidity of such a norm if he is.in Garcia vs. of supervision or control. dissenting: .Insofar as the term "quasi-judicial" is concerned. It refers to the management actions.The Constitution prohibits the designation of members of the judiciary to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions. to be confined to the task of adjudication. Neither will the Committee on Justice promulgate rules and regulations nor exercise any quasi-legislative functions. it cannot justify a member of the judiciary being required to assume a position or perform a duty non-judicial in character. they are trustees of an orderly society. As public officials. He is not a subordinate of an executive or legislative official. it has a fairly clear meaning and Judges can confidently refrain from participating in the work of any administrative agency which adjudicates disputes and controversies involving the rights of parties within its jurisdiction. Only a higher court can pass on his actuation. Its work is purely advisory. As incumbent RTC Judges. but only when such assistance may be reasonably incidental to the fulfillment of their judicial duties. -7- . Manzano is DENIED. . which discharges a administrative functions. . There is an element of positive action. I do not see anything wrong in a member of the judiciary joining any study group which concentrates on the administration of justice as long as the group merely deliberates on problems involving the speedy disposition of cases particularly those involving the poor and needy litigants or detainees. Disposition The aforesaid request of Judge Rodolfo U. will be in violation of the Constitution. Fidelity to his sworn responsibility no less than the maintenance of respect for the judiciary can be satisfied with nothing less. and orders of executive officials as they administer the laws and try to make government effective. Even as nonmembers of Provincial/City Committees on Justice. The essence of the trust reposed in him is to decide. That is implicit in the principle.Considering that membership of Judge Manzano in the Ilocos Norte Provincial Committee on Justice. Otherwise there is a plain departure from its command. RTC judges should render assistance to said Committees to help promote the laudable purposes for which they exist. the practical demands of government precluding its doctrinaire application. . as expected. Their integrity and performance in the adjudication of cases contribute to the solidity of such structure. and limits itself to recommendations which may be Under the Constitution. the Court is constrained to deny his request. pools the expertise and experiences of the members. SEPARATE OPINIONS GUTIERREZ. determinations. however eminent.
Article VIII. to such quasi-judicial bodies as the SEC. for example. questioning the election of May 14. those on the right. Some named on the left list of elected officials may be called the Puyat Group. dissenting: . 1979. however. 1979 and was sought to be registered on said date. The SEC granted leave to intervene on the basis of Atty. or administrative agencies like the BIR.. orally entered his appearance as counsel for respondent Acero to which the Puyat Group objected on Constitutional grounds. provided that no Assemblyman could "appear as counsel before . The Acero Group claimed that the stockholders' votes were not properly counted. 113 SCRA 31 Melencio-Herrera. MELENCIO-HERRERA. Fernandez leave to intervene in SEC Case No. Section 11. Fernandez' ownership of the said adopted or rejected by those who have the power to legislate or administer the particular function involved in their implementation. (ii) The deed of sale. it turned out that: (i) On May 15. Fernandez had purchased from Augusto A. of the 1973 Constitution. then in force. When the SEC Case was called. the day following the notarization of Assemblyman Fernandez' purchase. which will interfere with the discharge of judicial functions or totally remove a Judge/Justice from the performance of his regular functions. PUYAT v DE GUZMAN JR. -The constitutional provision is intended to shield Judges from participating in activities which may compromise their independence or hamper their work. 1979. Those are full-time positions involving running the affairs of government. 1747 (the SEC Case). (iii) On May 31.The Committee on Justice cannot be likened to such an administrative agency of government. The Puyat Group claims that at conferences of the parties with respondent SEC Commissioner de Guzman. was held. the Puyat Group would be in control of the Board and of the management of IPI. Incidentally. Morales ten (10) shares of stock of IPI for P200. 1747 FACTS On May 14. Fernandez. It is a study group with recommendatory functions. 1979. and SEC was an administrative body. . an election for the eleven Directors of the International Pipe Industries Corporation (IPI) a private corporation. then a member of the Interim Batasang Pambansa. Thus. The Acero Group instituted at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) quo warranto proceedings..1979. the same prohibition was maintained by the April 7. docketed as Case No. the Acero Group. 1981 plebiscite. was notarized only on May 30.What I believe is contemplated by the Constitutional prohibition is designation. March 25 1982 NATURE This suit for certiorari and Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction is poised against the Order of respondent Associate -8- . Assemblyman Estanislao A.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 Commissioner of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) granting Assemblyman Estanislao A. any administrative body". Assemblyman Fernandez did not continue his appearance for respondent Acero. Justice Estanislao A. The cited Constitutional prohibition being clear.00 upon request of respondent Acero to qualify him to run for election as a Director. the latter had filed an Urgent Motion for Intervention in the SEC Case as the owner of ten (10) IPI shares alleging legal interest in the matter in litigation.
He would still appear as counsel indirectly. reads: SEC. as amended. 11. during his term of office. but which was objected to by petitioners. the validity of the objection. No. And it maybe noted that in the case filed before the Rizal Court of First Instance (L-51928). 1979. Ratio Section 11. on May 30. that is a circumvention of the Constitutional prohibition.. representing ten shares out of 262. He acquired them "after the fact" that is. He had acquired a mere P200. to enable him eventually to vote and to be elected as Director in the event of an unfavorable outcome of the SEC Case would be pure naivete. after the contested election of Directors on May 14. that is. All an Assemblyman need do. ISSUE: Whether or not Assemblyman Fernandez. if he wants to influence an administrative body is to acquire a minimal participation in the "interest" of the client and then "intervene" in the proceedings. before he moved to intervene. or any subdivision. 1979 before SEC and one day before the scheduled hearing of the case before the SEC on May 31.00 worth of stock in IPI. he decided. after the quo warranto suit had been filed on May 25. In brief. Acero. or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the Government. he appeared as counsel for defendant Excelsior. He shall not accept employment to intervene in any cause or matter where he may be called to act on account of his office. instead. No Member of the Batasang Pambansa shall appear as counsel before any court without appellate jurisdiction. or before any administrative body. 1979. the intervention of Assemblyman Fernandez in SEC. The "intervention" was an afterthought to enable him to appear actively in the proceedings in some other capacity. he had signified his intention to appear as counsel for respondent Eustaquio T. we are constrained to find that there has been an indirect "appearance as counsel before . (Emphasis supplied) Reasoning Certain salient circumstances militate against the intervention of Assemblyman Fernandez in the SEC Case.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 including any government-owned or controlled corporation. agency. directly or indirectly be interested financially in any contract with. as a then stockholder of IPI may intervene in the SEC Case without violating Section 11. To believe the avowed purpose. co-defendant of respondent Acero therein. That which the Constitution directly prohibits may not be done by indirection or by a general legislative act which is intended to accomplish the objects specifically or impliedly prohibited. Article VIII of the Constitution. C. in our opinion. before any court in any civil case wherein the Government. It is this Order allowing intervention that precipitated the instant petition for certiorari and Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction. or in any criminal case wherein any officer or employee of the Government is accused of an offense committed in relation to his office. II. Article VIII of the Constitution HELD 1. Realizing. agency or instrumentality thereof. or any subdivision. And what is more. 1747 falls within the ambit of the prohibition contained in Section 11. NO. Article VIII of the Constitution. CONTROL OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ten shares. an administrative body" and.843 outstanding shares. perhaps. -9- . or instrumentality thereof is the adverse party. which. Under those facts and circumstances. A ruling upholding the "intervention" would make the constitutional provision ineffective. to "intervene" on the ground of legal interest in the matter under litigation. Neither shall he.. 1979.
revise. are the Civil Service Commission. it is the Court that has the power to review the same via the petition of any interested party. ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES AND THE EXECUTIVE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT ARTICLE VII. the Commission on .A. respondent COMELEC anchors its claim of unconstitutionality of said Sections upon Section 1. that another provision. CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT POWER MACALINTAL v COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS 405 SCRA 693 AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ. The executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines. including the legislators. It agrees with the petitioner that Sections 19 and 25 of R. it may not be subject to interference by any government instrumentality and that only this Court may review COMELEC rules and only in cases of grave abuse of discretion. bureaus. -He submits that the creation of the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee with the power to review. and the Commission on Audit. -It is only on this question that respondent COMELEC submitted its Comment. It asserts that its power to formulate rules and regulations has been upheld in Gallardo vs. 9189 violate Article IX-A (Common Provisions) of the Constitution. vis-à-vis its rulemaking power..A. R. 2004 elections. No. Article IX-A of the Constitution providing for the independence of the constitutional commissions such as the COMELEC. 9189 intrudes into the independence of the COMELEC which. Voting by mail may be allowed in countries that satisfy the following conditions: a) Where the mailing system is fairly well-developed and secure to prevent occasion for fraud. as a constitutional body. and c) Where the system of reception and custody of mailed ballots in the embassies.A.The COMELEC adds. however. subject to the approval of the Congressional Oversight Committee. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. 1987 Constitution Section 1. to wit: SEC. b) Where there exists a technically established identification system that would preclude multiple or proxy voting. which shall be independent. Voting by Mail. COMELEC joins the petitioner in asserting that as an independent constitutional body. amend and approve the Implementing Rules and Regulations promulgated by the COMELEC. No. and that should the rules promulgated by the COMELEC violate any law. Jr. the Commission shall authorize voting by mail in not more than three (3) countries. [RELATIVE NI JAT?-hehe] where this Court held that the power of the COMELEC to formulate rules and regulations is implicit in its power to implement regulations under Section 2(1) of Article IX-C of the Constitution.1. 9189 are unconstitutional. For the May. and offices. that only the COMELEC itself can promulgate rules and regulations which may be changed or revised only by the majority of its members. is not under the control of either the executive or legislative departments of government. The President shall have control of all the executive departments. Tabamo. Section 17. consulates and other foreign service establishments A. B. 2003 NATURE Petition for certiorari and prohibition FACTS -Macalintal as taxpayer avers that Sections 19 and 25 of R. 17. Like the petitioner. July 10. No. . to wit: Section 1. The Constitutional Commissions. J.10 - .Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 Elections. 17.
A.11 - . -The ambit of legislative power under Article VI of the Constitution is circumscribed by other constitutional provisions. through the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee created in Section 25 of Rep. the constitutionally enumerated powers of Congress circumscribe its authority to the exclusion of all others. the Court has held that "[w]hatever may be the nature of the functions of the Commission on Elections. review. the fact is that the framers of the Constitution wanted it to be independent from the other departments of the Government. No.. One such provision is Section 1 of Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution ordaining that constitutional commissions such as the COMELEC shall be "independent. amend and revise the law. There is no question that the authority of Congress to "monitor and evaluate the implementation" of R. No. Thereafter. 9189. 9189 gives to the JCOC the following functions: (a) to "review. revise.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 Implementing Rules and Regulations that the Commission on Elections shall promulgate without violating the independence of the COMELEC under Section 1. and revise the IRR for The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003. and (b) subject to the approval of the JCOC [Section 17. exercise the power to review. 9189 is geared towards possible amendments or revision of the law itself and thus. the voting by mail in not more than three countries for the May 2004 elections and in any country determined by COMELEC." -Interpreting Section 1. amend and approve the Implementing Rules and Regulations" (IRR) promulgated by the COMELEC [Sections 25 and 19]. RATIO Once a law is enacted and approved. revise and amend the IRR of the COMELEC. Article IX-A mandating the independence of constitutional commissions. R.. amend. The legislative function may spring back to Congress relative to the same law only if that body deems it proper to review. Congress went beyond the scope of its constitutional authority. revise. the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee (JCOC) is a purely legislative body. Act No. Under such a situation.A. -By vesting itself with the powers to approve.. may be performed in aid of its legislation. is likewise unconstitutional as it violates Section 1. and by the principles of exclusio unius est exclusio alterius and expressum facit cessare tacitum. Congress trampled upon the constitutional mandate of independence of the COMELEC. the legislative function is deemed accomplished and complete. ISSUE Whether or not Congress. but certainly not to approve. review. . Article IX-A of the Constitution? HELD NO.. amend. and approve the . voting by mail in any country shall be allowed only upon review and approval of the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee. Article X of the 1935 Constitution providing that there shall be an independent COMELEC. the Court is left with no option but to withdraw from its usual reticence in declaring a provision of law unconstitutional.1]. aside from its monitoring and evaluation functions. REASONING Composed of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives. concerned are adequate and wellsecured.. -However. -The Solicitor General takes exception to his prefatory statement that the constitutional challenge must fail and agrees with the petitioner that Sections 19 and 25 are invalid and unconstitutional on the ground that there is nothing in Article VI of the Constitution on Legislative Department that would as much as imply that Congress has concurrent power to enforce and administer election laws with the COMELEC.. . .
Congress may intrude into the independence of the COMELEC by exercising supervisory powers over its rule-making authority. and the phrase. 2004 elections.A. No. as determined by the COMELEC pursuant to the conditions provided for in Section 17. in recognition of the administrative expertise of that agency in its particular field of operation. 9189. In the same vein. Congress would overstep the bounds of its constitutional mandate and intrude into the independence of the COMELEC. "only upon review and approval of the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee" found in the second paragraph of the same section are unconstitutional as they require review and approval of voting by mail in any country after the 2004 elections. revise. Congress has empowered the COMELEC to "issue the necessary rules and regulations to effectively implement the provisions of this Act within sixty days from the effectivity of this Act. PUNO AS PART OF THE PONENCIA ON THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF SECTIONS 17. all the members of the Court agreed to ADOPT THE SEPARATE OPINION OF JUSTICE REYNATO S. to wit: "The Implementing Rules and Regulations shall be submitted to the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee created by virtue of this Act for prior approval.1.the legislature grants an administrative agency the authority to craft the rules and regulations implementing the law it has enacted." and the second sentence of the second ." b) The portion of the last paragraph of Section 17. to wit: "only upon review and approval of the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee.1 of R. the petition is partly GRANTED. orders and rulings. NO. -Similarly.A. -During the deliberations. arrogates unto itself a function not specifically vested by the Constitution. 19 AND 25 OF R.12 - . to review its decisions." This provision of law follows the usual procedure in drafting rules and regulations to implement a law . amend and approve the Implementing Rules and Regulations promulgated by the Commission. the phrase. The following portions of R. -By virtue of Section 19 of R. Disposition WHEREFORE. should be stricken out of the subject statute for constitutional infirmity.A.1 which empowers the Commission to authorize voting by mail in not more than three countries for the May.1." that is. "subject to the approval of the Congressional Oversight Committee" in the first sentence of Section 17." and -The Court has no general powers of supervision over COMELEC which is an independent body "except those specifically granted by the Constitution." c) The second sentence of the first paragraph of Section 19. 9189 INSOFAR AS THEY RELATE TO THE CREATION OF AND THE POWERS GIVEN TO THE JOINT CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE. it is not correct to hold that because of its recognized extensive legislative power to enact election laws. Both provisions brazenly violate the mandate on the independence of the COMELEC. 9189 are declared VOID for being UNCONSTITUTIONAL: a) The phrase in the first sentence of the first paragraph of Section 17." whereby Congress. 9189. No.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 paragraph of Section 25 stating that "[i]t shall review. in both provisions. Otherwise. -The second sentence of the first paragraph of Section 19 stating that "[t]he Implementing Rules and Regulations shall be submitted to the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee created by virtue of this Act for prior approval. to wit: "subject to the approval of the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee.1.A. Congress may not confer upon itself the authority to approve or disapprove the countries wherein voting by mail shall be allowed. No.
9189 to be promulgated by COMELEC. executive. Pursuant to Section 30 of R. Act No. concurring 1 dissenting: : 1 and I dissent from the majority’s ruling upholding the constitutionality of section 5(d) of Rep. SEPARATE OPINION PUNO. executive power. the power of oversight embraces all activities undertaken by Congress to enhance its understanding of and influence over the implementation of legislation it has enacted. however. (b) to determine whether agencies are properly . Act No. d) The second sentence in the second paragraph of Section 25. Article VII of the Constitution. and judicial. executive. Their writings were mainly reactions to the ruinous struggle for power by the monarchs and the parliaments in Western Europe. I also concur with the majority with respect to the unconstitutionality of sections 17. with the majority’s ruling upholding the constitutionality of section 18.5 of R. 9189 subjecting the implementation of voting by mail. The constitutionality of Section 5(d) is UPHELD. In the absence of specific provision in the Constitution. Clearly. and judicial power. it is fundamental under the principle of separation of powers that one branch cannot exercise or share the power of the other. in its interpretation. and judicial powers to a single branch of government by deftly allocating their exercise to the three branches of government.A. Concept and bases of congressional oversight -Broadly defined. for being repugnant to Section 1.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 The resolution of the issue entails a two-tiered discussion of the: (1) whether Congress has oversight functions over constitutional bodies like the COMELEC. in its execution. the rest of the provisions of said law continues to be in full force and effect. such as COMELEC. to prior review and approval by Congress. This principle dates back from the time of Aristotle but the "modern" concept owes its origin in the seventeenth and eighteenth century writings of political philosophers including Locke and President. No. In this respect. and the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Rep. legislative. Vice- Montesquieu. oversight concerns post-enactment measures undertaken by Congress: (a) to monitor bureaucratic compliance with program objectives. -Justce Puno locates the concept of congressional oversight in the grand scheme of checks and balances under the doctrine of separation of power. revise. I concur. 9189 is UPHELD with respect only to the authority given to the COMELEC to proclaim the winning candidates for the Senators and party-list representatives but not as to the power to canvass the votes and proclaim the winning candidates for President and Vice-President which is lodged with Congress under Section 4. No. Article IX-A of the Constitution mandating the independence of constitutional commission.5 of Rep. and (2) assuming that it has. Separation of powers and checks and balances The principle of separation of powers prevents the concentration of legislative. 9189.A. amend and approve the Implementing Rules and Regulations promulgated by the Commission" of the same law. The constitutionality of Section 18. -The Constitution divided the powers of our government into three categories. whether Congress exceeded the permissible exercise of its oversight functions. Senators and Party-List Representatives after executing the required affidavit. to wit: "It shall review.13 - .1. Act No. which allows an immigrant or a permanent resident of a foreign country to vote for President. Act No. 9189. Although not "hermetically sealed" from one another. the powers of the three branches are functionally identifiable. 9189 with respect to the authority given to the COMELEC to proclaim the winning candidates for Senators and Party-List Representatives but not as to the power to canvass the votes and proclaim the winning candidates for President and Vice-President. legislative power is generally exercised in the enactment of the law. 19 and 25 of Rep.
-But legislative scrutiny does not end in budget hearings. Section 22. -The power of appropriation carries with it the power to specify the project or activity to be funded. -The power of oversight has been held to be intrinsic in the grant of legislative power itself and integral to the checks and balances inherent in a democratic system of government. -Legislative scrutiny is based primarily on the power of appropriation of Congress.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 Categories of congressional oversight functions The acts done by Congress purportedly in the exercise of its oversight powers may be divided into three categories. the "power of the purse" belongs to Congress. Congress can even curtail the activities of the administrative agencies by denial of funds. appear before and be heard by such House on any matter pertaining to their departments. and (d) to assess executive conformity with the congressional perception of public interest. (c) to eliminate executive waste and dishonesty. to compel a full exposition and justification of all of them which any one considers objectionable. During budget hearings. Written questions shall be submitted to the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives at least administered. Congress has the final say on appropriations. In his Consideration of Representative Government. Congress can ask the heads of departments to appear before and be heard by either House of Congress on any matter pertaining to their departments.14 - . (d) to prevent executive usurpation of legislative authority. Its primary purpose is to determine economy and efficiency of the operation of government activities. The President may propose the budget. Consequently. a. In the exercise of legislative scrutiny. namely: scrutiny. Hence. It can give recommendations or pass resolutions for consideration of the agency involved. He emphasized that "[E]ven more important than legislation is the instruction and guidance in political affairs which the people might receive from a body which kept all national concerns suffused in a broad daylight of discussion." Wilson went one step farther and opined that the legislature’s informing function should be preferred to its legislative function. Congress may request information and report from the other branches of government. as the rules of each House shall provide. but still. Article VI of the 1987 Constitution provides: The heads of departments may. investigation and supervision. The consideration of the budget is also an opportunity for the lawmakers to express their confidence in the performance of a Cabinet Secretary or to manifest their disgust or disfavor of the continuance in office of a bureaucrat. administrative officials defend their budget proposals. Under the Constitution. the holding of budget hearing has been the usual means of reviewing policy and of auditing the use of previous appropriation to ascertain whether they have been disbursed for purposes authorized in an appropriation act. Among the most quoted justifications for this power are the writings of John Stuart Mill and Woodrow Wilson. Scrutiny Congressional scrutiny implies a lesser intensity and continuity of attention to administrative operations. upon their own initiative. Mill wrote that the duty of the legislature is "to watch and control the government. with the consent of the President. administrative officials appear every year before the appropriation committees of Congress to report and submit a budget estimate and a program of administration for the succeeding fiscal year. to throw the light of publicity on its acts. and to censure them if found condemnable. or upon the request of either House." .
Congressional investigation While congressional scrutiny is regarded as a passive process of looking at the facts that are readily available.15 - . Article VI of the 1987 Constitution provides for the organization of a Commission on Appointments consisting of the President of the Senate as ex officio Chairman.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 are vested with the President under the Constitution. Theoretically. Experience has shown that mere requests for such information are often unavailing. congressional investigation has been held to be an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function. (b) ambassadors. The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected. and where the legislative body does not itself possess the requisite information — which is not frequently true — recourse must be had to others who do possess it. In other words. When the security of the State or the public interest so requires and the President so states in writing. Congress shares in the appointing power of the executive. but may cover matters related thereto. -American jurisprudence upholding the inherent power of Congress to conduct investigation has been adopted in our jurisdiction in Arnault v. A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which legislation is intended to affect or change. Consent of the Commission on Appointments is needed for the nominees of the President for the following positions: (a) heads of executive departments. elected by each House on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties or organizations registered under the party-list system. integrity and probity required of all public servants. other public ministers and consuls. the appearance shall be conducted in executive session. decided in 1950. the power of inquiry — with process to enforce it — is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function. Nazareno. -But even in the absence of an express provision in the Constitution. the Court ruled as follows: -Although there is no provision in the Constitution expressly investing either House of Congress with power to make investigations and exact testimony to the end that it may exercise its legislative functions advisedly and effectively. Interpellations shall not be limited to written questions. Section 18. b. so some means of compulsion is three days before their scheduled appearance. -This provision originated from the Administrative Code and was later elevated to the level of a constitutional provision due to its "great value in the work of the legislature. It also provides Congress an opportunity to find out whether the nominee possesses the necessary qualifications. Article VI. Congress exercises legislative scrutiny thru its power of confirmation. when no provision yet existed granting Congress the power to conduct investigation. and also that information which is volunteered is not always accurate or complete. viz: The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committee may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. Upholding the power of the Senate to punish Arnault for contempt. and (d) other officers whose appointments . congressional investigation involves a more intense digging of facts. The power of Congress to conduct investigation is recognized by the 1987 Constitution under section 21. it is intended to lessen political considerations in the appointment of officials in sensitive positions in the government." -Likewise. such power is so far incidental to the legislative function as to be implied. twelve Senators and twelve members of the House of Representatives. (c) officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain. -Through the power of confirmation.
and (c) the persons appearing therein are afforded their constitutional rights. Hence. this Court held that the senate committee exceeded the permissible exercise of legislative investigation because there was nothing in Senator Enrile’s speech which indicate that it is in aid of legislation. to the appropriate committee. thus: ." It noted that since Arnault himself said that the transaction was legal. In the House of Representatives.[T]he danger of self-incrimination must appear reasonable and real to the court. there is therefore no basis upon which to sustain his claim that to reveal the name of that person would incriminate him. It held that it is not enough for the witness to say that the answer will incriminate him for he is not the sole judge of his liability. But the Court explained that "the materiality of the question must be determined by its direct relation to the subject of the inquiry and not by its indirect relation to any proposed or possible legislation. the power of Congress to investigate is circumscribed by three limitations. or to secure immunity to a third person. -The conduct of legislative investigation is also subject to the rules of each House. -The Court further held that once an inquiry is admitted or established to be within the jurisdiction of a legislative body to make. subject to his constitutional right against self-incrimination.000. infirm. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee. . and not by a fraction of such information elicited from a single question. or essential to obtain what is needed. the Court ruled that the ground on which Arnault invoked the right against self-incrimination "is too shaky. . Jr. from all the circumstances and from the whole case. upon motion of the Majority Leader or his deputies. the investigating committee has the power to require a witness to answer any question pertinent to that inquiry. v. -Finally.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 information to be gathered as a result of the investigation.16 - . The inquiry must be material or necessary to the exercise of a power in it vested by the Constitution. . The fact that the Constitution expressly gives the Congress the power to punish its Members for disorderly behaviour. and that he gave the P440. The witness cannot assert his privilege by reason of some fanciful excuse.[ -As now contained in the 1987 Constitution. namely: (a) it must be in aid of its legislative functions. a witness can not be coerced to answer a question that obviously has no relation to the subject of the inquiry.00 to a representative of Burt in compliance with the latter’s verbal instruction. an inquiry may be initiated or conducted by a committee motu proprio on any matter within its jurisdiction upon a majority vote of all its Members or upon order of the House of Representatives through: (1) the referral of a privilege speech containing or conveying a request or demand for the conduct of an inquiry. does not by necessary implication exclude the power to punish for contempt any other person. as well as from his general conception of the relations of the witness. unless he is at the same time liable to prosecution and punishment for such violation. and slippery to afford him safety. . -In Bengzon. The fact that the testimony of the witness may tend to show that he has violated the law is not sufficient to entitle him to claim the protection of the constitutional provision against self-incrimination. for protection against an imaginary danger. -The Court further ruled that the power of the Senate to punish a witness for contempt does not terminate upon the adjournment of the session. ." The reason is that the necessity or lack of necessity for legislative action and the form and character of the action itself are determined by the sum total of the . (b) it must be conducted in accordance with duly published rules of procedure. .
c. The inquiries are to be held in public except when the committee or sub-committee deems that the examination of a witness in a public hearing may endanger national security. of a petition filed or information given by a Member of the House requesting such inquiry and endorsed by the Speaker: Provided. except to punish for contempt. resolution. stating the facts upon which it is based. and accompanied by supporting affidavits. In which case.17 - . signed by the chairperson or acting chairperson and the Speaker or acting Speaker. documents or records that are relevant to the inquiry and are in his/her possession. -The committee to which a privilege speech. papers. any person called to be a witness may be represented by a counsel and is entitled to all rights including the right against selfincrimination. -The Rules further provide that "the filing or pendency of a case before any court. congressional supervision allows Congress to scrutinize the exercise of delegated law-making authority. the committee has the power "to issue subpoena and subpoena duces tecum to a witness in any part of the country. petition or information requesting an inquiry is referred may constitute and appoint sub-committees composed of at least one-third (1/3) of the committee for the purpose of performing any and all acts which the committee as a whole is authorized to perform. punish for contempt any person who: (a) refuses. That all resolutions directing any committee to conduct an inquiry shall be referred to the Committee on Rules. That such petition or information shall be given under oath. and permits Congress to retain part of that delegated authority. to obey such summons without legal excuse. While both congressional scrutiny and investigation involve inquiry into past executive branch actions in order to influence future executive branch performance. Legislative supervision The third and most encompassing form by which Congress exercises its oversight power is thru legislative supervision. after making a determination on the necessity and propriety of the conduct of inquiry by such committee." In exercise of congressional inquiry." Furthermore. (c) refuses to answer any relevant inquiry. the committee may. These provisions require the President or an agency to present the proposed regulations to Congress. a joint inquiry by the said committees shall be . (d) refuses to produce any books. by a vote of twothirds (2/3) of all its members constituting a quorum. or (f) unduly interferes in the conduct of proceedings during meetings. It typically utilizes veto provisions when granting the President or an executive agency the power to promulgate regulations with the force of law. -Nevertheless.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 conducted. which (2) the adoption of a resolution directing a committee to conduct an inquiry reported out by the Committee on Rules after making a determination on the necessity and propriety of the conduct of an inquiry by such committee: Provided. (b) refuses to be sworn or placed under affirmation. after being duly summoned. -Congress exercises supervision over the executive agencies through its veto power. "Supervision" connotes a continuing and informed awareness on the part of a congressional committee regarding executive operations in a given administrative area. it shall conduct the hearing in an executive session. or (3) the referral by the Committee on Rules to the appropriate committee. (e) acts in a disrespectful manner towards any member of the Committee or commits misbehavior in the presence of the committee. tribunal or quasi-judicial or administrative bodies shall not stop or abate any inquiry conducted to carry out a specific legislative purpose. In case a privilege speech is referred to two or more committees.
Consequently. he coupled his request with a proposal for legislative review. the provision returned during the Roosevelt administration and has since been renewed several times. but leaves their implementation to the judgment of parties who may or may not have participated in or agreed with the development of those aims.S. But without some means of overseeing post enactment activities of the executive branch. Congress articulates legislative aims. in many instances the reverse of our constitutional scheme could be effected: Congress proposes. He proposed that the Executive "should act upon approval of a joint Committee of Congress or with the reservation of power of revision by Congress within some limited period adequate for its consideration.S. absent safeguards. 23 of which were disapproved pursuant to legislative veto provisions. One safeguard.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 used extensively. -The legislative veto was developed initially in response to the problems of reorganizing the U. only if Congress does not affirmatively disapprove of the regulation in the meantime. When U. the provision was . President Hoover requested authority to reorganize the government in 1929. -Its opponents. leaving the choice of policy options to the discretion of an executive officer. however. Congress would be unable to determine whether its policies have been implemented in accordance with legislative intent and thus whether legislative intervention is appropriate.18 - . One proponent thus explains: It is too late to debate the merits of this delegation policy: the policy is too deeply embedded in our law and practice. of course. any measure beyond that would undermine the separation of powers guaranteed by the Constitution. criticize the legislative veto as undue encroachment upon the executive prerogatives. the Executive disposes. the statute provides that a proposed regulation will become law if Congress affirmatively approves it. is the legislative power to enact new legislation or to change existing law. Such legislative veto provisions usually provide that a proposed regulation will become a law after the expiration of a certain period of time. Over the years. Government structure during the Great Depression in early 20th century.] They contend that legislative veto constitutes an impermissible evasion of the President’s veto authority and intrusion into the powers vested in the executive or judicial branches of government." Congress followed President Hoover’s suggestion and authorized reorganization subject to legislative review. Although the reorganization authority reenacted in 1933 did not contain a legislative veto provision. Proponents counter that legislative veto enhances separation of powers as it prevents retains a "right" to approve or disapprove any regulation before it takes effect. They urge that any post-enactment measures undertaken by the legislative branch should be limited to scrutiny and investigation. It suffices to say that the complexities of modern government have often led Congress-whether by actual or perceived necessity. Less frequently.to legislate by declaring broad policy goals and general statutory standards. -Supporters of legislative veto stress that it is necessary to maintain the balance of power between the legislative and the executive branches of government as it offers lawmakers a way to delegate vast power to the executive branch or to independent agencies while retaining the option to cancel particular exercise of such power without having to pass new legislation or to repeal existing law. Various American Presidents submitted to Congress some 115 Reorganization Plans. They contend that this arrangement promotes democratic accountability as it provides legislative check on the activities of unelected administrative agencies.
As such. This Court has no general power of supervision over the Commission on Elections except those specifically granted by the Constitution. -Given its important role in preserving the sanctity of the right of suffrage. a discussion of the nature and powers . a staggered system of appointment was devised. the power to enforce our election laws was vested with the President and exercised through the Department of the Interior. plebiscite.] and to appoint its own officials and employees in accordance with Civil Service laws. To ensure that not all Commissioners are appointed by the same President at any one time. three for five years.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 of the Commission on Elections as provided in the 1987 Constitution is decisive to the issue. In contrast. however." In an era of delegated authority. -Several safeguards have been put in place to protect the independence of the COMELEC from unwarranted encroachment by the other branches of government. In addition. the COMELEC was purposely constituted as a body separate from the executive. of the Commissioners first appointed. While the President appoints the Commissioners with the concurrence of the Commission on Appointments. Congressional Oversight and COMELEC The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) is a constitutional body exclusively charged with the enforcement and administration of "all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election." -Given the concept and configuration of the power of congressional oversight. the next level of inquiry is whether congress exceeded its permissible exercise in the case at bar. the enforcement of our election laws. and recall." and is invested with the power to decide all questions affecting elections save those involving the right to vote. According to Dean Sinco. But before proceeding. the appointee shall only serve the unexpired term of the predecessor. They have a fixed tenure and are removable only by impeachment. legislative. In case of vacancy. legislative veto permits Congress to participate prospectively in the approval or disapproval of "subordinate law" or those enacted by the executive branch pursuant to a delegation of authority by Congress. They submit that reporting requirements and congressional committee investigations allow Congress to scrutinize only the exercise of delegated law-making authority. they point out that legislative veto "is the most efficient means Congress has yet devised to retain control over the evolution and implementation of its policy as declared by statute. Thus. initiative. the view ultimately emerged that an independent body could better protect the right of suffrage of our people. Originally. the Rules of Court are not applicable to the Commission on Elections. They further argue that legislative veto "is a necessary response by Congress to the accretion of policy control by forces outside its chambers. three shall hold office for seven years. Reappointment and temporary designation or appointment is prohibited. the Commissioners are not accountable to the President in the discharge of their functions. the decisions of the COMELEC are reviewable only by petition for the executive branch and independent agencies from accumulating too much power. while an executive power. and the last three for three years. referendum. and judicial branches of government. was transferred to the COMELEC. -The COMELEC exercises quasijudicial powers but it is not part of the judiciary. They do not allow Congress to review executive proposals before they take effect and they do not afford the opportunity for ongoing and binding expressions of congressional intent. The COMELEC is likewise granted the power to promulgate its own rules of procedure.19 - . Hence.
It cannot be trenched upon by Congress in the exercise of its oversight powers. -The COMELEC is. He limits the notion of legislative veto to powers conferred by statute or delegated powers. amend and approve the implementing rules and regulations of the COMELEC. THE PRESENT CONSTITUTION ENVISIONS A TRULY INDEPENDENT COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS COMMITTED TO ENSURE FREE. Undoubtedly. 9189 granting Congress the power to review. Act No. AND TO SERVE AS THE GUARDIAN OF THE PEOPLE'S SACRED RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE — THE CITIZENRY'S VITAL WEAPON IN EFFECTING A PEACEFUL CHANGE OF GOVERNMENT AND IN ACHIEVING AND PROMOTING POLITICAL STABILITY. But Congress cannot abolish the COMELEC as it can in case of other agencies under the executive branch. its exercise is beyond invasion by Congress. I respectfully submit that the legislative veto power or congressional oversight power over the authority of COMELEC to issue rules and regulations in order to enforce election laws is unconstitutional. HONEST. it owes its origin from the Constitution. hence. Under any lens. sections 19 and 25 of Rep. the power to promulgate rules and regulations has been directly granted by the Constitution and no longer by Congress. PEACEFUL AND CREDIBLE ELECTIONS. and hence. Heretofore. -Be that as it may. The impugned provisions can result in the denial of this constitutionally conferred power because Congress can veto the rules and regulations the COMELEC has promulgated. all that remains is their enforcement. Thus. CONGRESS MAY WITHDRAW THE SAME AT ANY TIME. subject to congressional scrutiny especially during budget hearings.20 - . Congress can withdraw or restrict it by the exercise of its veto or oversight power. . it is endowed with independence in the exercise of some of its powers and the discharge of its responsibilities. The COMELEC occupies a distinct place in our scheme of government. it is already beyond the ambit of legislative veto] The elevation of the COMELEC’s power to promulgate rules and regulations in the 1987 Constitution is suffused with significance. Our Constitution has specifically given the COMELEC the power to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election. however. 9189 constitute undue restrictions on the constitutional power of the COMELEC to promulgate rules and regulations for such rules are made subject to the prior review and approval of Congress. otherwise known as subordinate legislations in other countries. As the constitutional body charged with the administration of our election laws. revise. Since the legislative standards have been defined. IF ITS RULE-MAKING POWER IS MADE TO DEPEND ON STATUTES.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 INDEED. The power is exclusive and it ought to be selfevident that it cannot be subject to review and revision or veto by Congress in the exercise of its certiorari on grounds of grave abuse of discretion. there is such thing as a legislative veto albeit there is no express constitutional provision using the term LEGISLATIVE VETO. it was Congress that granted COMELEC the power to promulgate rules and regulations. [ BSJ: This statement of Puno supports the notion that in the Philippines. I respectfully submit that sections 19 and 25 of Rep. When a power is conferred by the Constitution itself such as the COMELEC’s rulemaking power. ORDERLY. The reason is obvious. The COMELEC is not a mere creature of the legislature. the power was granted to COMELEC to strengthen its independence. The power to promulgate rules and regulations in order to administer our election laws belongs to this category of powers as this has been vested exclusively by the 1987 Constitution to the COMELEC. are unconstitutional. Under the 1987 Constitution. Act No. DOUBTLESS.
(In reality) Congress creates rather than abolish (evidenced by the multiplication of regulatory agencies) as society becomes more complex. To confer both rule making powers and adjudicatory powers seem to run counter the principle of separation of powers. merge modify and abolish agencies. In the exercise of this exclusive power. the Commission must be accorded considerable latitude. Carlota Administrative agencies have proliferated in recent years. the more specific the standards the greater the chances of confining administrative discretion within its proper limits If the standards are too broad or vague. -Congress has the power to withhold funds for these agencies but at the end of the day it is reluctant in wielding this power because it recognizes that if it does. Legislative and Judicial Control of Administrative Decision Making. the administrator is allowed to exercise uncontrolled discretion oversight power. divide. they should not be interfered with. -the state is compelled to create admin agencies to deal with problems brought by social and economic change. .Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 -Their creation is directed towards the regulation of sensitive areas in social and economic relations but the exercise of the powers vested upon them is constantly attended by arbitrariness or abuse of discretion. the reason for the exclusivity is to insulate COMELEC from the virus of partisan politics. during budget hearings. these agencies undergo strict scrutiny but receive their appropriations just the same. thus the need and the development of mechanisms of control over these agencies. . it will affect public interest. and Investigation Creation . Appropriation. Unless the means and methods adopted by COMELEC are clearly illegal or constitute grave abuse of discretion. the legislature must not only declare the policy to be executed but it must likewise fix a standard to guide the agency in the exercise of its delegated power -for this doctrine to be effective. the legislature must be able to provide sufficient or definite standards every time it decides to delegate powers to an administrative agency. C. So what happens is. LEGISLATIVE CONTROL OVER ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES Power of Creation. Investigation -has limited value as a tool to provide as effective regular control of the improper exercise of administrative power -effective only as an aid in legislation The non-delegation doctrine and the requirement of legislative standards -traditional legal thinking places considerable emphasis on the nondelegation doctrine and the prescription of legislative standards to control administrative agencies in the exercise of their powers -the rule is for delegation of powers to an administrative agency to be valid.21 - . Salvador T. Again. Appropriation -have potential for checking arbitrariness in the administrative process but in reality these have no appreciable effect in controlling administrative discretionary power.(In theory) Congress can create. Administrative agencies are endowed with significant rulemaking and adjudicative powers and make decisions that affect both public interest and private rights. But recent developments and the complexities of contemporary society has left us with no choice but to adopt a more hospitable interpretation of the doctrine of separation of powers that can accommodate the existence of administrative agencies within our constitutional system.
although indirectly exert control over the activities of administrative agencies through the prescription of rules or principles of administrative procedure -these rules of procedure serve to maximize fairness in the administrative process -in prescribing rules of procedure the following must be considered (a) administrative agencies are not bound by the technical rules of procedure and evidence followed in regular courts (b) administrative agencies are designed to act with dispatch and flexibility to enable them to speedily accomplish their objectives.22 - . the legislature is unable to provide for definite or specific standards because there are numerous areas of regulation which are of different nature. subject to variable conditions and policy considerations with varying degrees of susceptibility to definite standards. thus a uniform rule of procedure for all is out of the question. There is a need to grant them enough leeway to come up with rules particularly suited to their areas of concern. The ideal situation is to provide them with minimum procedural guidelines and general principles to be observed in the performance of their rulemaking and adjudicative functions. the administrator’s discretion is virtually unconfined and the possibility of abuse in the exercise of such discretionary power becomes a real problem -In the US this doctrine has long been regarded as unsatisfactory -Davis suggests that the nondelegation doctrine should be altered to turn it into an effective and useful judicial tool. The focus should no longer be exclusively on standards. the Court is generally unwilling to strike down the validity of the delegation for broadness or vagueness of the standards. -Interest of law and order. . thus they adopted their own rules of procedure which resulted in a bewildering variety of rules and regulations promulgated by the agencies which in turn caused -Non-delegation cases shows that in many instances of delegation. Administrative Procedure as a Mode of Control -the legislature can. and (b) the rate of change and movement in the facts concerning such policies -this inability has not caused the Supreme Court to shy away from assuming a liberal posture I resolving challenges regarding the sufficiency of standards. vagueness and degree of potential conflicts among policy indications which the legislature wants to be accommodated. it should be on the totality of protections against arbitrariness. Thus. irrespective of what the statutes say or fail to say. (c)Administrative agencies are created to deal with specific problems. The key should no longer be statutory words. The focus of judicial inquiries thus should shift from statutory standards to administrative safeguards and standards. Including both safeguards and standards. justice and equity and substantial merits of the case have been considered as sufficient standards to sustain the constitutionality of the delegation of powers.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 -this combination (inability of congress to provide sufficient standards and reluctance of SC to strike down the constitutionality of such delegation) undermines the efficacy of the non-delegation doctrine. it should be protections and the administrators in fact provide. with different objectives and under varying conditions. -the SC recognizes that delegation to administrative agencies is a compelling necessity on a modern complex society. Stone stresses that in providing definite standards the following must be considered (a) the number. public interest. This does not however exempt them from the fundamental requirements of procedural due process (see Ang Tibay v CIR). -for a long time there was no law that prescribed common procedural guidelines for all administrative agencies.
Administrative Law Dean Carlota
arbitrariness in the administrative process. -Even if the enabling statutes of these agencies are silent with regard to judicial review, the Supreme Court has consistently held that this does not foreclose the possibility of such review. In one case it held that it is generally understood that as to administrative agencies exercising quasi-judicial or legislative power there is an underlying power in the courts to scrutinize the acts of such agencies on the question of law ad jurisdiction even though no right of review is given by statute. The purpose of judicial review is to keep the administrative agency within its jurisdiction and protects substantial rights of parties affected by its decisions. It is part of a system of checks and balances which restricts the separation of powers and forestalls arbitrary and unjust adjudications. Judicial review is proper in case of lack of jurisdiction, grave abuse of discretion, error of law, fraud or collusion (San Miguel v Sec of Labor). -note that the Supreme Court made no mention of judicial review of agency determination of fact and policy. -The judiciary recognizes that its traditional role is deeply rooted to the idea of judicial deference to administrative expertise and the now well entrenched substantial evidence rule in administrative law. -Questions of law belong to the domain of the judiciary, questions of fact and policy on the other hand are better resolved by administrative agencies which posses expertise or experience in their respective areas of specialization. -While deference to administrative expertise is the rule the courts nevertheless is not precluded from reviewing agency determination of fact and policy. When the substantiality of the evidence supporting the factual findings of the agency is challenged, the issue assumes a judicial character. And the lack of substantial evidence to support agency finding causes the overturning of such by the courts. -The courts generally avoid intervention in cases involving policy considerations, however there are occasions when in the course of resolving questions of law which are intimately linked to policy matters, the courts are unable to exclude the consideration of such matters in the review. CONCLUSION The rise of administrative power has generated a host of problems regarding controls over the exercise of such power. Legislative Controls
confusion and was prejudicial to the persons affected especially when the rules were not made easily available to them. -The Administrative Code of 1987 was a significant legislative measure that answered this problem; it contains provisions which are applicable to all agencies. It provides for the minimum procedural standards which in their totality strike a harmonious balance between the fundamental requirements of procedural due process and the demands of administrative flexibility. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION MAKING -Judicial review of agency decisions is given special emphasis in administrative law. -that there should be judicial review is not contested, the debate is on the purpose of such review. -A radical view would subject not only the agency conclusion of law but its determinations of fact policy as well. -the controlling principles frown upon a wide-ranging or freewheeling type of judicial review. -The courts, traditionally, have been confined to the role of seeing to it that administrative agencies stay within the limits of their power as defined in their enabling statutes and protecting private rights by checking
- 23 -
Administrative Law Dean Carlota
NATURE Petition for certiorari with prayer for preliminary injunction FACTS - MWSS conducted bidding for two projects concerning its water distribution system in Metro Manila. The Philippine Large Diameter Pressure Pipes Manufacturers’ Association (PLDPPMA) then questioned the award of the projects with the Office of the Ombudsman (Vasquez), charging an “apparent plan” on the part of the MWSS to favor certain suppliers (those offering fiberglass pipes over those offering steel pipes) through the technical specifications, and urging the Ombudsman to conduct an investigation thereon and hold in abeyance the award of the contracts. The Ombudsman then issued the assailed order, directing the MWSS to: “set aside the recommendation of an MWSS committee to award the contact to a contractor offering fiberglass pipes”, and “award the subject contract to a complying and responsive bidder” - the officials of MWSS filed the instant petition with the SC, contending that the ombudsman acted beyond the competence of his office when he assumed jurisdiction over the complaint, when the same is clearly among the excepted cases enumerated in the Ombudsman Act. Also, that the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion by arbitrarily and capriciously interfering with the exercise of sound discretion of the MWSS ISSUE 1. WON the Ombudsman had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint filed by the PLDPPMA and correspondingly issue the challenged orders HELD 1. NO Ratio The Reasoning On the basis of all the provisions regarding the Office of the Ombudsman, Solicitor-General insists that the authority of the Ombudsman is sufficiently broad enough to cloth it with sufficient power to look into the alleged irregularities in the bidding conducted by the MWSS - “The reason for the creation of the Ombudsman in the 1987 Consti and for the grant to it of broad investigative authority, is to insulate said office from the long tentacles of officialdom that are able to penetrate judges' and fiscals' offices, and others involved in the prosecution of erring public officials, and through the exertion of official pressure and influence, quash, delay, or dismiss investigations into malfeasances and misfeasances committed by public
Appropriation – Power of the purse; but is generally not wielded in consideration of public interest Fixing of Standards- Has been proven to be of little value Prescription of Rules-prescription of minimum procedural guidelines and general principles to be commonly observed by agencies can help maximize fairness in the administrative process. Administrative Code of 1987 – strikes a harmonious balance between the fundamental requirements of fairness and the need for administrative flexibility Judicial Review –important instrument to control agency behavior through the court’s actual policing of agency behavior to ensure that it is confined within the limits set by law D. THE OMBUDSMAN: ITS EFFECTIVITY AND VISIBILITY AMIDST BUREAUCRATIC ABUSE AND IRREGULARITY E. CASES CONCERNED OFFICALS OF MWSS v VASQUEZ, PLDPPMA 240 SCRA 502 VITUG; January 25, 1995
- 24 -
Administrative Law Dean Carlota
to undertake the projects. While the broad authority of the Ombudsman to investigate any act or omission which "xxx appears illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient" may be yielded, it is difficult to equally concede, however, that the Constitution and the Law have intended to likewise confer upon it veto or revisory power over an exercise of judgment or discretion by an agency or officer upon whom that judgment or discretion is lawfully vested. It seems that the Ombudsman, in issuing the challenged orders, has not only directly assumed jurisdiction over, but likewise preempted the exercise of discretion by, the Board of Trustees of MWSS. Indeed, the recommendation of the MWSS Committee to award the contract appears to be yet pending consideration and action by the MWSS Board of Trustees. We can only view the assailed order to be more of an undue interference in the adjudicative responsibility of the MWSS Board of Trustees rather than a mere directive requiring the proper observance of and compliance with the law. Disposition Petition is granted. Order annulled and set aside. LASTIMOSA v VASQUEZ 243 SCRA 497 MENDOZA; April 6, 1995 NATURE Petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by petitioner to set aside the orders of the Ombudsman with respect to the two proceedings: complaint for grave misconduct, insubordination, gross neglect of duty and maliciously refraining from prosecuting crime and a charge for indirect contempt. FACTS - February 18, 1993 > Dayon, public health nurse at Cebu, filed with the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas a criminal complaint for frustrated rape and an administrative complaint for immoral acts, abuse of authority and grave misconduct against the Municipal Mayor of Santa Fe, Rogelio Ilustrisimo. After an investigation, the investigating officer found no prima facie evidence and recommended its dismissal. But the Ombudsman, Vasquez, disapproved the recommendation and directed that Mayor Ilustrisimo be charged with attempted rape. Deputy Ombudsman for Visayas Mojica referred the case to Cebu Provincial Prosecutor Kintanar for the "filing of appropriate information with the Regional Trial Court of Danao City.” The case eventually went to First Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Gloria G. Lastimosa.
officers. It was deemed necessary, therefore, to create a special office to investigate all criminal complaints against public officers regardless of whether or not the acts or omissions complained of are related to or arise from the performance of the duties of their office. The Ombudsman Act makes perfectly clear that the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman encompasses 'all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance that have been committed by any officer or employee as mentioned in Section 13 hereof, during his tenure of office.” - the powers, functions and duties of the Ombudsman have generally been categorized into: Investigatory Power; Prosecutory Power; Public Assistance Functions; Authority to Inquire and Obtain Information; and Function to Adopt, Institute and Implement. This case concerns the investigatory power and Public Assistance Duties of the Ombudsman - the Ombudsman, in resolving the complaint, considered 3 issues: (1) WON the technical specifications prescribed by MWSS in the projects have been so designed as to really favor Fiberglass Pipes-Contractors/ Bidders; (2) WON the MWSS has the technical knowledge and expertise with fiberglass pipes; and (3) WON the contractors and local manufacturers of fiberglass pipes have the experience and qualification
- 25 -
reverse or modify his (prosecutor's) decision. instructing Lastimosa and Kintanar to explain in writing why they should not be punished for indirect Contempt of the Office of the Ombudsman "for refusing and failing to file the appropriate Information for Attempted Rape against the Mayor. any act or omission of any public officer or employee. directing Assistant Regional State Prosecutor to implement preventive suspension. As no case for attempted rape had been filed by the Prosecutor's Office.Ombudsman is authorized to call on prosecutors for assistance. she filed an information for acts of lasciviousness.Petitioner claims: Office of the Ombudsman and the prosecutor's office have concurrent authority to investigate public officers or employees and that when the former first took cognizance of the case against Mayor Ilustrisimo. YES Ratio When a prosecutor is deputized. WON Office of the Ombudsman has the power to punish for contempt and impose preventive suspension HELD 1. Reasoning . Obiter . Those designated or deputized to assist him as herein provided shall be under his supervision and control. without pay. office .Mojica issued an order placing Lastimosa and Kintanar under preventive suspension for a period of six (6) months as approved by Ombudsman Vasquez . he comes under the "supervision and control" of the Ombudsman which means that he is subject to the power of the Ombudsman to direct. stating that the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor to comply with the directive of the Office of the Ombudsman that a charge for attempted rape be filed against the Mayor in recognition of the authority of said Office.The office of the Ombudsman has the power to "investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person.26 - . it did so to the exclusion of the latter. the Office of the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over the case against the mayor because the crime involved (rape) was not committed in relation to a public office. review. WON the Office of the Ombudsman has the power to call on the Provincial Prosecutor to assist it in the prosecution of the case for attempted rape against Mayor Ilustrisimo 2.Lastimosa conducted a PI and found that only acts of lasciviousness had been committed. The Ombudsman may utilize the personnel of his office and/or designate of deputize any fiscal. and designating Assistant Regional State Prosecutor Concepcion as Acting Provincial Prosecutor of Cebu . state prosecutor or lawyer in the government service to act as special investigator or prosecutor to assist in the investigation and prosecution of certain cases. Mojica ordered Kintanar and Lastimosa to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt for "refusing and failing to obey the lawful directives" of the Office of the Ombudsman. approve. With the approval of Kintanar.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 under preventive suspension for a period of six (6) months.September 6. ISSUES 1. Therefore the Office of the Ombudsman has no authority to place her and Provincial Prosecutor Kintanar under preventive suspension for refusing to follow his orders and to cite them for indirect contempt for such refusal. 1994 > Lastimosa filed the petition for certiorari and prohibition to set aside the orders directing them to file of the action (for Attempted Rape) against the Mayor. Petitioner cannot legally act on her own and refuse to prepare and file the information as directed by the Ombudsman. approving of the placement of Lastimosa and Kintanar . Sec 31 of the Ombudsman Act of 1989 (RA6770) provides: Designation of Investigators and Prosecutors. In any event. .
The Office of the Ombudsman received information from an informant for reward regarding the anomalous grant of tax refunds to Distillera Limtuaco and La Tondena Distilleries. There is. therefore. improper or inefficient. Mansequiao of the legal department of the BIR to appear before him together with the complete case dockets of the two companies. The 1987 Constitution provides that the “Ombudsman and his Deputies. that there must be a pending action before the issuance of a subpoena can be made. is within the power of the Ombudsman to investigate and prosecute. Hence. including or agency. or any subdivision. or instrumentality thereof.Sec 15(g) of the Ombudsman Act gives the Office of the Ombudsman the power to "punish for contempt. . Disposition Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit and the Motion to Lift Order of Preventive Suspension is DENIED BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE v OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN 380 SCRA 424 de Leon. Certiorari and Prohibition FACTS . WON the Ombudsman could validly exercise its power to investigate only when there exist an appropriate case 2. when such act or omission appears to be illegal. The power to investigate and to prosecute granted by law to the Ombudsman is plenary and unqualified. If after such investigation.Suspension is not a punishment or penalty for the acts of dishonesty and misconduct in office.BIR resisted this summons on the grounds that the grant of the tax refund had already been decided by the Sandiganbayan in People vs Larin. It is enough that the act or omission was committed by a public official. agency. prohibition. or connected with. 2..The BIR filed this Petition for certiorari. then he is removed or dismissed. nothing improper in suspending an officer . the performance of his official duty. . On the basis of this information. but only as a preventive measure.27 - . or arise from.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 pending his investigation and before the opportunity to prove his innocence.The Ombudsman denied the motion of the BIR and reiterated it instructions to the BIR to produce the documents sought. and preliminary injunction. as protectors of the people. that the BIR had exclusive authority to grant a tax credit." This power has been held to include the investigation and prosecution of any crime committed by a public official regardless of whether the acts or omissions complained of are related to. April 11. that the proper authority to review is with the Court of Tax Appeal. . the charges are established and the person investigated is found guilty of acts warranting his removal. the crime of rape. J. in accordance with the Rules of Court and under the same procedure and with the same penalties provided therein. shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials or employees of the government. No. Jr. Suspension is a preliminary step in an administrative investigation. and that the subpoena did not specifically described the documents sought to be produced. This is the penalty. and temporary restraining order with the SC ISSUE/S 1." . Atty. the Ombudsman directed via a subpoena duces tecum. YES . unjust. when committed by a public official like a municipal mayor. 2002 NATURE Special civil Action . WON it violated due process in issuing subpoena without first giving BIR the summary of complaint and requiring it to submit a written reply HELD 1.
§3(e). 2002 NATURE Petition for review on certiorari FACTS . The power to investigate and to prosecute granted by law to the Ombudsman is plenary and unqualified. 3019. The law clearly provides that if there is reasonable ground to investigate further. . the investigator shall first furnish the respondent public official or employee with a summary of the complaint and require him to submit a written answer within 72 hours from receipt of said complaint. HELD . Clearly. based on alleged purchases of medicine and food assistance for cultural community members. January 25. improper or inefficient. . Disposition Petition is granted.Respondents were employed at the Office of the Southern Cultural Communities (OSCC). Ombudsman has powers to prosecute not only graft cases within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan but also those cognizable by the regular courts.28 - . Yes.Respondents moved to quash the informations saying that the Ombudsman has no authority to prosecute graft cases falling within the jurisdiction of regular courts. however.They were charged with 11 counts of malversation through falsification. The SC held that the procedure of immediately issuing the subpeona duces tecum was violative of the right to due process and did no comply with Section 26. This motion was granted by the RTC and the cases were dismissed without prejudice. the Ombudsman failed to afford BIR with the basic due process in conducting the investigation.The Office of the Ombudsman filed the instant petition. the BIR was never given a copy of the complaint but was summarily ordered to appear before the Ombudsman and to produce the case dockets of the tax refunds granted to the two companies.YES. 2.The jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman should not be equated with the limited authority of the Special Prosecutor under Section 11 of RA 6770. in appropriate cases. The Office of the Special Prosecutor is merely a component of the Office of the Ombudsman and may only act under the supervision and control and upon authority of the Ombudsman. The law does not make a distinction between cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and those cognizable by regular courts. . Ombudsman is prohibited from proceeding with the .Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 case and its orders are annulled and set aside.R. As noted. in connection with the purchases of supplies for the OSCC without bidding/canvass. It has been held that the clause “any illegal act or omission of any public official” is broad enough to embrace any crime committed by a public officer or employee. 145957-68 MENDOZA. .A. and nonfeasance that have been committed by any officer or employee…during his tenure. and shall. misfeasance. to their refiling by the appropriate officer. Nos. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN v ENOC G. and one count of violation of R. unjust. Its power to conduct government owned or controlled corporations. It pertains to any act or omission of any public officer or employee when such act or omission appears to be illegal. Davao del Sur with salaries below grade 27. The Ombudsman Act makes it perfectly clear that the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman encompasses all kinds of malfeasance. notify the complainants of the action taken and the result thereof”. No. ISSUE WON the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute cases before the regular courts. paragraph 2 of the Ombudsman Act (RA 6770).
The motion was granted by Judge Fuentes that same day. branch 19 of Digos. the RP represented by the DPWH filed an expropriation case against the owners of the properties affected by the project (namely. 374(97) to 385(97) are hereby REINSTATED and the Regional Trial Court is ORDERED to try and decide the same. D. The lower court issued another order upholding the validity of the writ of execution . FUENTES v OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN . 807. Davao del Sur is SET ASIDE and Criminal Case Nos. the order. including the repairable equipment within the DPWH depot. October 23. state prosecutor or lawyer in the government service to act as special investigator or prosecutor to assist in the investigation and prosecution of certain cases. the law allows him to utilize the personnel of his office and/or designate any fiscal. Section 36 (b) of P. 2001 NATURE Petition for certiorari FACTS . To carry out this duty. The law likewise allows him to direct the Special prosecutor to prosecute cases outside the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction in accordance with Section 11(4c) of RA 6770. An auction was conducted wherein Alex Bacquial emerged as the highest bidder. in violation of Article IX. . Those designated or deputized to assist him work under his supervision and control. Reynaldo Lao and Rev. Garcia of the Second District of Davao City and Engineer Ramon A. Bacquial succeeded in hauling off the scrap iron/junk equipment in the depot.The gov’t won the expropriation case. of the Regional Trial Court. dated October 7. Bacquial together with Sheriff Norberto Paralisan attempted to withdraw the auctioned properties but they were prevented from doing so because many of these were still serviceable and were due for repair and rehabilitation. Fuentes. (as opposed to their classification as scrap iron/junk) . The case was presided by Judge Renato A. From this order. Tessie Amadeo.The Ombudsman is mandated by law to act on all complaints against officers and employees of the government and to enforce their administrative.After considering the facts. .On the basis of letters from Congressman Manuel M. However. . the office of the preliminary investigation and to prosecute is limited to criminal cases within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Fuentes and Sheriff Norberto Paralisan to comment on the report recommending the filing of an administrative case against the sheriff and other persons responsible for the anomalous implementation of the writ of execution.29 - . the DPWH filed an administrative complaint against Sheriff Norberto Paralisan for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. No. 124295 PARDO. Thus. Also. the Court Administrator. civil and criminal liability in every case where the evidence warrants. He hauled equipment from the depot for five successive days until the lower court issued another order temporarily suspending the writ of execution it earlier issued in the expropriation case and directing Bacquial not to implement the writ. Disposition WHEREFORE. Alejo.The properties subject of the levy as described as all scrap iron/junks found in the premises of the DPWH. the SC directed Judge Renato A.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 GR NO. . Alfonso Galo). the SC ordered the sheriff’s dismissal.So Alex Baquial filed an ex-parte urgent motion for the issuance of a 'break through' order to enable him to effect the withdrawal of the auctioned properties.Pursuant to the government's plan to construct its first fly-over in Davao City. 2000.
Section 3 (e) and likewise be administratively charged before the Supreme Court with acts unbecoming of a judge. . The Ombudsman must indorse the case to the Supreme Court. without running afoul of the independence of the judiciary and the doctrine of separation of powers. 2005 NATURE Petition for review on certiorari to reverese and set aside CA decision FACTS . Hence. the petition is GRANTED. Director Antonio E. July 29. 161629 YNARES-SANTIAGO. 3019. Fuentes. Article VIII. WON the Ombudsman may conduct an investigation of acts of a judge in the exercise of his official functions alleged to be in violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. pursuant to his power to investigate public officers. LEDESMA v CA (DESIERTO) G. filed with the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao a motion to dismiss complaint and/or manifestation to forward all records to the Supreme Court.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 HELD NO. Valenzuela of the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao recommended that petitioner Judge Renato A. Agusto Somalio with the Fact Finding and Intelligence Bureau (FIIB) of the Office of the Ombudsman filed a complaint requesting for an investigation on alleged anomalies surrounding the extension of the Temporary Resident Visas (TRVs) of 2 foreigners. has competence to review a judicial order or decision-whether final and executory or not-and pronounce it erroneous so as to lay the basis for a criminal or administrative complaint for rendering an unjust judgment or order. Section 6 of the Constitution exclusively vests in the Supreme Court administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel. for appropriate action. it is the Supreme Court that is tasked to oversee the judges and court personnel and take the proper administrative action against them if they commit any violation of the laws of the land. The motion was dismissed hence this petition. The Ombudsman may not initiate or investigate a criminal or administrative complaint before his office against petitioner judge.R. Dispositive WHEREFORE. ISSUE 1. from the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals to the lowest municipal trial court clerk.30 - . . . not the prosecution or investigation service of any other branch. No other branch of government may intrude into this power. That prerogative belongs to the courts alone. Fuentes be charged before the Sandiganbayan with violation of Republic Act No. No.The FIIB. Fuentes to the Supreme Court for appropriate action. in the absence of an administrative charge for the same acts before the Supreme Court. The Office of the Solicitor General is likewise ordered to take appropriate action to recover the value of the serviceable or repairable equipment which were unlawfully hauled by Alex Bacquial. as nominal complainant filed with Adjudication Bureau (AAB) Court Administrator was also directed to conduct an investigation on Judge Renato Fuentes and to charge him if the result of the investigation so warrants.Atty Ronaldo Ledesma is the chaiman of the 1st division of the Board of Special Inquiry (BSI) of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID). No other entity or official of the Government.Thus. not any functionary thereof. The FIIB investigation revealed 7 other cases of TRV extensions with similar irregularities. The Ombudsman is directed to dismiss the case and refer the complaint against petitioner Judge Renato A.
. forwarding the applications for TRV extension of several aliens whose papers were questionable. he approved the resolution of Graft Investigation Officer Marilou AnchetaMejica dismissing criminal charges for insufficiency of evidence. . ISSUE/S 1. MFR was denied. Ladesma and Coarongan allegedly signed the Memorandum of Transmittal to the Board of Commission (BOC) of the BID.Graft Investigation Officer Marlyn Reyes resolved the administrative cases in a resolution recommending that Ledesma be suspended from the service for 1 year for Conduct Prejudicial to the Interest of the Service. Falsification of Public Documents and Gross Neglect of Duty. that Caronongan be dismissed for being moot and academic and the case against Ang . Artherl Caronongan (board member) and Ma. The main thrust of the case is to determine whether petitioner committedany misconduct. . Atty. .CA affirmed the suspension but reduced it to 6mos and 1day without pay. nonfeasance. He cannot feign good faith when the irregularities of the TRV extention application were patently clear on its face. CA issued the TRO.31 - . The BSI reviews the applications and when it finds them in order.Graft Officer Reyes recommended the denial of the MFR which was approved by Desierto but reduced the suspension from 1yr to 9mos without pay. WON CA failed to consider that the Ombudsmand's resolution finding Ledesma administratively liable constitutes an indirect encroachment intot he power of the Bureau of Immigration over immigration matters HELD 1. The case against the petitioner was treated as both criminal and administative for 9 countsof violationof the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for falsification of public documents and 9 counts of Dishonesty. NO Reasoning Petitioner undermines his position in the BID and his role in the processing of the subject applications.Pending the approval by Desierto. WON CA erred in finding that the ombudsman is not merely advisory on the Bureau of Immigration 3. Asst Ombudsman Abelardo Aportadera reviewed the joint resolution which was approved by Ombudsman Desierto.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 be dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. executes a Memorandum of Tranmittal to the BOC certifying to the regularity of the application. Elena Ang (exec asst) were also charged administratively. grave Misconduct. . . The contention that the BOC's approval of the defective application for TRV extension cured any infirmaties absolved petitioner's administrative lapse. misfeasance or mal feasance in the performance of his of the Office of the Ombudsman a formal complaint against the petitioner.Petitioner filed an MFR in the administrative case alleging that the BOC which reviewed the applications for extension approved theTRVs in question thereby effectively declared the applicationd regular and in order and waived any infurmity thereon. All heads of offices have to rely to a reasonable extent on their subordinated. .The complaint alleged the ff illegal acts: (a) irregularily in granting TRVs beyond the prescbed period and (b) using photocopied applications for a TRV extension wthout the applicants fixing their signatures to validate the correctness of the information. WON CA manifestly overlooked relevant facts which would have justified a conclusion in favor of the petitioner 2.Petitionerfiled a petition for review with the CA with a preliminary prohobitory mandatory injunction and/or temporary restraining order to enjoin public respondents from the implementation of the order of suspension.
subparagraph (3). Act No. or (f) Are otherwise irregular. the quantum of proof required for a finding of guilt is only substantial evidence. that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. (d) Proceed from a mistake of law or an arbitrary ascertainment of facts. but not limited to acts or omissions which: (a) Are contrary to law or regulation. Jun 26.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 the Ombudsman can only “recommend” the removal of the public official or employee found to be at fault. unfair. demote. suspend. of Article XI of the 1987 Constitution. Inc. Harbor Master of the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA). though in accordance with law. 6770. When Estarija went to the office of Adrian Cagata to pick up the money. was found guilty by the Ombudsman of dishonesty and grave misconduct for having been demanding monies for the approval and issuance of berthing permits and monthly contribution from the Davao Pilots Association. (e) Are in the exercise of discretionary powers but for an improper purpose. the instant petition is DENIED. YES. . Reasoning: a. 6770 provides for the functional and structural organization of the Office of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman and his deputies are mandated to act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against officers or employeed of the Government. 2. The authority of the Ombudsman to conduct administrative investigations as in the present case is settled. the Ombudsman’s administrative authority is merely recommendatory HELD 1. to the public official concerned. (c) Are inconsistent with the general course of an agency’s functions. Under Section 13. b. NO Ratio The creation of the Office of the Ombudsman is a unique feature of the 1987 Constitution. (DPAI). In an administrative proceeding. ISSUES 1. Estarija was caught red-handed in an entrapment operation. (b) Are unreasonable. Congress deliberately endowed the Ombudsman with the power to duties. Rep. Act No. NO. Disposition WHEREFORE. his doing so was indicative of his willingness to commit the crime. Reasoning Ledesma argues that to uphold CA's ruling expands authority granted by the constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman. WON the power of the Ombudsman to directly remove. The Solicitor General and the Office of the Ombudsman argue that the word “recommend” must be taken in conjunction with the phrase “and ensure compliance therewith” and not its literal meaning.32 - . 2and3. fine or censure erring officials is unconstitutional since the under the 1987 Constitution. oppressive or discriminatory. Foremost among its powers is the authority to investigate and prosecute public officers and employees. The Constitutional Commission left to Congress to empower the Ombudsman with prosecutorial functions which it did when RA 6770 was enacted. 2006 NATURE Petition for review on certiorari FACTS Captain Edgardo V. immoral or devoid of justification. WON there is substantial evidence to hold petitioner liable for dishonesty and grave misconduct 2. In passing Rep. Estarija. ESTARIJA v RANADA 492 SCRA 652 QUISUMBING. He was dismissed from the service. Section 19 of RA 6770 providesa that the Ombudsman shall act on all complaints relating.
Then RA 6770 gave OMB such other powers that it may need to efficiently perform the task given by the Consti. in addition to the power of the Ombudsman to prosecute and conduct investigations. In fine. 3. intent of the framers of the Constitution Based on the record of the Constitutional Commission. the lawmakers intended to provide the Ombudsman with the power to punish for contempt and preventively suspend any officer under his authority pending an investigation when the case so warrants. In 1987. par. specifically Section 15. it was emphasized that the OMB’s order to remove. The Constitution does not restrict the powers of the Ombudsman in Section 13. They gave Congress the discretion to give the Ombudsman powers that are not merely persuasive in character. Article XI of the 1987 Constitution. The petition is Held: Yes. prosecute offenses committed by public officers and employees to make him a more active and effective agent of the people in ensuring accountability in public office.33 - . however to coursed through the proper officer. Reasoning a. . section 13. Jurisprudence . The authority of the OMB to act on complaints filed against public officers and employees is explicit in Article XI. it was limited only in cases of failure of justice. and the Judiciary. Article XI. suspend. the lawmakers gave the Ombudsman such powers to sanction erring officials and employees.In Ledesma v. failing to remit authorized fees and to account for public funds. Issue: WON the OMB may directly discipline public school teachers and employees. Act No. they clarified that the powers of the OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN VS MASING Puno January 22. the manifest intent of the lawmakers was to bestow on the Office of the OMB full administrative disciplinary authority in accord with the constitutional deliberations. functions and duties of the OMB and such enumeration is non-exclusive. DISPOSITION DENIED. the legislature has vested the Ombudsman with broad powers to enable him to implement his own actions. Thus. 2008 The principal and office clert of Davao City Integrated Special School were administratively charged before the OMB for Mindanao for allegedly collecting unauthorized fees. we held that Rep. In 1973. or prosecute an officer or employee is not merely advisory or recommendatory but is actually mandatory. He was likewise given disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive officials of the government and its subdivisions. but allows the Legislature to enact a law that would spell out the powers of the Ombudsman. They are not foreclosing the possibility that in the future. Through the enactment of Rep. fine. Court of Appeals. 3. Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution. censure. Not just a passive one but an activist watchman. Moreover. demote.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 Ombudsman are not exclusive. it was intended to play a more active role in the enforcement of laws on anti-graft and corrupt practices and other offenses committed by public officers and employees. Implementation of the order imposing the penalty is. the Assembly may have to give additional powers to the Ombudsman. except members of Congress. In Office of the OMB vs Laja. b. which delineates the powers. instrumentalities and agencies except members of Congress and the Judiciary. Act No. 6770. 6770 is consistent with the intent of the framers of the 1987 Constitution.
either as to time or manner.R. to require every public utility as herein defined – (e) to furnish annually a detailed report of finances and operations. A2010 G. NON DELEGATION DOCTRINE COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v THE BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISIONERS HELD YES. as a common carrier of passengers and merchandise by water. the body entrusted with the duty must exercise it. 2307 failed to lay down the general rules of action under which the Board was to proceed. by order in writing. 16 of Act No. Act No. In conjunction therewith. LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION 1. This is not also applicable because they were filed with violations of civil service laws by the DECS secretary unlike in the present case where they were charged with violations of RA 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. Section 19 of RA 6770 grants to the OMB the authority to act on all administrative complaints. ISSUE WON there was a delegation legislative power to the Board of III. it is mandated by no less than Section 13(1). -petitioner questioned the Board’s authority on the ground that Act No. and violative of the constitution. it may require of that commission the . This amounted to the Legislature’s abdication of its powers and functions to the Board—as held in Birdsall vs Clark: if discretion and judgment are to be exercised. having laid down the general rules of action under which a commission shall proceed. It did not indicate what specific information the State required and instead authorized the Board to require whatever information it wanted.Administrative Law Dean Carlota The authority of the OMB to conduct administrative investigations is beyond cavil. and did not prescribe in detail the contents of the reports it required. upon notice. The Board dictated an order requiring petitioner to present a detailed report of its finances and operations of its vessels in the Phils. Everything was left to the judgment and discretion of the Board rendering the Act arbitrary. but. in the form of annual reports. the procedure set there was for administrative investigations conducted by DECS. “The Congress may not delegate its purely legislative powers to a commission.34 - . L-11216 Moreland. Fabella case.: March 6. upon hearing and service of an order for petitioner to show cause why such reports should not be required of them. after hearing. NO. -The Board relied on Sec. POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES A. and cannot delegate it to another. 1916 NATURE Petition for review of an order of the Board of Public Utility Commissioners (the Board) FACTS -petitioner is a foreign corporation organized under the laws of Spain and engaged in business in the Phils. As the principal and primary complaints and action center against erring public officers and employees. Article XI of the Constitution. 2307 was invalid as constituting an unlawful attempt on the part of Legislature to delegate legislative power to the Board. 2307 for its authority which states that: “the board shall have power. in such form and containing such matters as the Boars may from time to time by order prescribe. J. special legislation. -As stated in Interstate Commerce Commission vs Goodrich Transit.
the general rules had been laid down for the guidance of the commission. rice or corn. he was tried. rice or corn. any dealer who. to issue and promulgated temporary rules and emergency measures for carrying out the purposes of the Act. and 2) authorizes the GG to fix the quantities of sais products that a company or individual may acquire. in all its terms and provisions." and what is or what is not "an extraordinary rise in the price of rice. The Legislature does not undertake reasons the GovernorGeneral shall issue the proclamation." and as to what a temporary rule or an emergency measure for the carrying out the purpose of the Act. or how long such temporary rules or emergency measures shall remain in force and effect. but which may be left to take effect in futuro. found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment and to pay a fine.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 hoarding of palay. HELD. That is to say the Legislature itself has no in any manner specified or defined any basis for the order. it is a law in all its details. The Act also says: "For any cause. As held in Merchants Exchange vs Knott." It does not specify or define what is a temporary rule or an emergency measure. The Act also says that the GovernorGeneral. Under this state of facts. with application of such rules to particular situations and the investigation of facts." The Legislature does not specify or define what is "an extraordinary rise. conditions arise resulting in an extraordinary rise in the price of palay.The GG thus issued a proclamation fixing the price at which rice should be sold. Hence this appeal." and leaves the question as to what is "any cause" to the discretion of the GG.35 - . furthers that the law must be complete. and the maximum sale price that the industrial or merchant may demand. Here. Dowling vs Lancashire Insurance Co. the promulgation of temporary rules and emergency measures is left to the discretion of the GG. if the law is valid and the GG issues a proclamation fixing the minimum price at which rice should be sold. so that. is unconstitutional. which is completely valid. . 1922 FACTS . with a view to making orders in a particular matter within the rules laid down by the Congress”. but has left it to the sole judgment and discretion of the GG to say what is or what is not "a cause. when it leaves the legislature. Upon this charge. 2868. in essence. This case illustrates the conferring of authority as to the execution of the law. in form and substance. The order appealed from is set aside and the cause returned to the Board with instruction to dismiss US v ANG TANG HO 43 Phil 1 Johns. YES It will be noted that section 1 authorizes the GG.A complaint was filed against the Ang Tang Ho." That is also left to the discretion of the GG. "with the consent of the Council of State. the delegation of legislative power is pure and simple despotism. . The Act 1) makes unlawful the monopoly and . rice or corn and provides penalty for such violations. for any cause resulting in an extraordinary rise in the price of palay. but says that it may be issued " for any cause. the Philippine Legislature passed Act No. ISSUE WON Act No. charging him with the sale of rice at an excessive price. in so far as it authorizes the GG to fix the price at which rice should be sold. in presenti.In 1919. 2868. or when they shall take effect. the latter only having to carry out the details. with the consent of the Council of State. as opposed to the delegation of the power to make the law. By its very terms. February 27." is authorized to issue and promulgate "temporary rules and emergency measures for carrying out the purposes of this Act.
if at all. Without that proclamation. By the Organic Law. and the price may not have been extraordinary. and is not a law." and under certain undefined conditions to fix the price at which rice should be sold. 2868. Supreme Court of Wisconsin: "That no part of the legislative power can be delegated by the legislature to any other department of the government. There may not have been any cause. and without the proclamation. all legislative power is vested in the Legislature. the doing of which is vested in the GG. November 16. and that he would not commit a crime. that its operation shall be suspended. because the GG issued the proclamation. after the passage of Act No. but. its own action to depend. 2868 is analyzed. executive or judicial. When Act No. it was because the Governor-General issued the proclamation. is unconstitutional and void. without regard to grade or quality. and what was and what was not "an extraordinary rise in the price of palay. it was not a crime to sell rice at any price. in the absence of a proclamation." or what was "an extraordinary rise in the price of rice. the seller commits a crime. The Legislature did not specify or define what was "any cause. or any one else. That is to say. if the defendant committed a crime. There is no delegation of power and it is valid. also to say whether a proclamation should be issued. the Legislature left it to the sole discretion of the GG to say what was and what was not "any cause" for enforcing the act. and whether or not the law should be enforced. it must follow that. There was no act of the Legislature making it a crime to sell rice at any price. it was no crime to sell rice at any price. and the sale of it at any price would not be a crime. essential to the integrity and maintenance of the system of government established by the constitution. the sale of it at any price was not crime. if the Act within itself does not define a crime. if so. and it does nothing more than to authorize the GG to make rules and regulations to carry the law into effect.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 constitutional law. and before any rules and regulations were promulgated by the GG. then the Legislature itself created the law. The alleged sale was made a crime. and the power conferred upon the Legislature to make laws cannot be delegated to the GG. 2868 is a law unto itself and within itself. and is complete in and of itself. is a criminal. and there may not have been an emergency. rice or corn. then the Act is a delegation of legislative power. PEOPLE v VERA 65 Phil 56 LAUREL. and when the law should be suspended. The Legislative cannot delegate the Legislative power to enact any law. In the absence of the proclamation no crime was committed. or intends to make. "Where an act is clothed with all the forms of law. it may be provided that it shall become operative only upon some certain act or event. and rice is sold at any higher price. if the GG found the existence of such facts and issued a proclamation. and some legislative act remains to be done to make it a law or a crime. how long it should be enforced. 1937 FACTS or without notice. because there would be no law fixing the price of rice. in like manner. In other words. when. is a fundamental principle in . palay or corn.36 - . The legislature cannot delegate its power to make a law. or. it is the violation of the proclamation of the GG which constitutes the crime." Neither did it specify or define the conditions upon which the proclamation should be issued. Hence. a dealer in rice could sell it at any price. On the other hand. but it can make a law to delegate a power to determine some fact or state of things upon which the law makes. sells rice at a higher price." It must conceded that. If Act No.
gov’t powers are distributed among 3 coordinate and substantially independent organs: legislative. . averments. <emphasis on the hierarchy in the Philippine judicial system> ISSUE NOTE: There were many issues in this case regarding the constitutionality of Act No.”) HSBC filed opposition to motion for intervention. this does not authorize it to reverse the findings and conclusive of this court. remanded the case to CFI Manila for execution of judgment. Each has exclusive cognizance of the matters -1931: information for criminal case against Mariano Cu Unjieng. While a probation case may look into the circumstances attending the commission of the offense. and is therefore unconstitutional and void HELD YES. Each department derives its authority from the Constitution. On this same date. Cu Unjieng now sought to elevate case to US SC. The Fiscal of the City of Manila filed motion w/ TC for issuance of an order to execute judgment of Phil SC in said case & to commit MCU to jail in obedience to said judgment. subsequently filed a petition for leave to withdraw his appearance as amicus curiae on the ground that the motion was circulated at a banquet given by counsel for MCU & that he signed the same "without mature deliberation & purely as a matter of courtesy. Under the Consti. the focus of the digest is the non delegation doctrine – WON section 11 of Act No.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 probation. executive and judicial. especially wherefrom its own admission reliance was merely had on the printed briefs. undue delegation of legislative power (section 11 of the said Act endows prov’l boards w/ power to make said law effective or otherwise in their respective provinces). which was referred to the Insular Probation Office (IPO) -1937: IPO recommended denial of Cu Unjieng’s application for probation. HSBC attacked constitutionality of Act No. US SC denied petition for certiorari. Petition for probation heard before Judge Vera’s court. the offended party. final judgment was entered. 4221 based on the following: equal protection of the laws (its applicability is not uniform throughout the Islands). this instant case was field before Phil SC to put an end to what they alleged was an interminable proceeding in CFI Mnla.37 - . (Attorney Eulalio Chaves. 1 of the 34. Judge Vera eventually promulgates resolution finding Cu Unjieng innocent of the crime of which he stands convicted but denying the latter’s petition for . and pleadings of the parties. unconstitutional and void. -1936: RP SC denied Cu Unjieng’s petition for leave to file MFR or new trial.Note Probation implies guilt by final judgment. If each and every Court of First Instance could enjoy the privilege of overruling decisions of the Supreme Court. al was filed in CFI Manila. 4221 but for purposes of Admininstative law. Section 11 constitutes an improper and unlawful delegation of legislative authority to the provincial boards. After MFR and motions for new trial which were denied by SC. et. HSBC. A motion for leave to intervene in the case as amici curiae signed by 33 (34) attorneys was also filed. the highest expression of popular will. -1934: CFI convicted Cu Unjieng -1935: SC upholds conviction of Cu Unjieng. and judicial chaos would result. Reasoning. modified duration of imprisonment. 4221 constitute Undue Delegation of Legislative Power. therefore. This was followed by a series of alternative motions for new reconsideration or new trial. Counsel for MCU files exception to the resolution denying probation & notice of intention to file MFR. intervened. -19 August 1937: hearing on the various motions for CFI’s consideration. there would be no end to litigation. either directly or indirectly. Cu Unjieng applied for provation under Act No. 4221.
an act of the legislature is incomplete and hence invalid if it does not lay down any rule or definite standard by which the administrative officer or board may be guided in the exercise of the discretionary powers delegated to it. . The case before us does not fall under any of these exceptions.It is true that laws may be made effective on certain contingencies. come from Congress. The legislature.38 - .The rule. on the principle that potestas delegata non delegare potest. which necessarily involves a discretion as to what it shall be. however. The applicability and application of the Probation Act are entirely placed in the hands of the provincial boards. the provincial boards of the various provinces are to determine for themselves.In the case at bar. and within its jurisdiction. It admits of exceptions like: (1) delegation of legislative powers to local authorities. of course. . then may provide that a contingencies leaving to some other person or body the power to determine when the specified contingencies has arisen. a law may not be suspended as to certain individuals only. The plain language of the Act is not susceptible of any other interpretation.. If the provincial board does not wish to have the Act applied in its province. There is nothing essentially legislative in ascertaining the existence of facts or conditions as the basis of the taking into effect of a law. the various provincial boards are. and (4) to those whom the Constitution itself delegates such legislative powers (e. or the execution or operation of a law. The legislature may delegate a power not legislative which it may itself rightfully exercise. endowed with the power of suspending the operation of the Probation Law in their respective provinces.s1). . Any attempt to abdicate the power is unconstitutional and void. the President). and conferring an authority or discretion as to its execution.Test of Undue Delegation: to inquire whether the statute was complete in all its terms and provisions when it left the hands of the legislature so that nothing was left to the judgment of any other appointee or delegate of the . an accepted corollary of the principle of separation of powers.The power to make laws (the legislative power) is vested in a bicameral Legislature by the Jones Law (sec. As a rule. The Philippine Legislature or the National Assembly may not escape its duties and responsibilities by delegating that power to any other body or authority. all that it has to do is to decline to appropriate the needed amount for the salary of a probation officer. but the ascertainment of the contingency upon which the Act shall take effect may be left to such agencies as it may designate. as by proclamation of the executive or the adoption by the people of a particular community.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 legislature. (3) to the people at large. . supreme within its own sphere. The first cannot be done. . The suspension must be general.g. leaving the law to be enjoyed by others. which forbids the delegation of legislative power is not absolute and inflexible. to the latter no valid objection can be made. in practical effect. (2) to such agencies in US territories as Congress may select. In the case at bar. The power to ascertain facts is such a power which may be delegated. to be exercised under and in pursuance of the law. whether the Probation Law shall apply to their provinces or not at all.The efficiency of an Act as a declaration of legislative will must. . .While the legislature may suspend a law.The true distinction is between the delegation of power to make the law. That is a mental process common to all branches of the government. . 12) and in a unicameral National Assembly by the Constitution (A6. BUT to a certain extent matters of detail may be left to be filled in by rules and regulations to be adopted or promulgated by executive officers and administrative boards.
While we do not deny the right of local self-government and the propriety of leaving matters of purely local concern in the hands of local authorities or for the people of small communities to pass upon. accordingly. under this new law. that any one citizen should enjoy privileges and advantages which are denied to all others under like circumstances. The validity of a law is not tested by what has been done but by what may be done under its provisions. accordingly: "If the President. and as regards the general subject of probation.Emmanuel Pelaez. 124 and 126 to 129." The mass of powers of government is vested in the representatives of the people and that these representatives are no further restrained under our system than by the express language of the instrument imposing the restraint. the legislature may enact laws for a particular locality different from those applicable to other localities. or that ant one should be subject to losses. and were issued by the President in virtue of Sec. But option laws thus sustained treat of subjects purely local in character which should receive different treatment in different localities placed under different circumstances. or actions from which all others under like circumstances are exempted. 93 to 121. or by particular provisions which by clear intendment.Petitioner argues. have that effect. and the legislature can only exercise what is delegated to them according to the constitution. in his capacity as Vice President and as a taxpayer instituted this civil action alleging validity of EO Nos." . Act No. .R. L-23285 CONCEPCION. upon the theory that a cannot be made for individual cases or for particular localities. damages. 1965 NATURE Special civil action (for a writ of prohibition with preliminary injunction) against the Auditor General. suits. PELAEZ v AUDITOR GENERAL G. and to the spirit of our constitution and laws. Sec 3 of RA 2370 provides that barrios may "not be created or their boundaries altered nor their names changed" except by Act of Congress or of the corresponding provincial board "upon petition of a majority of the voters in the areas affected" and the "recommendation of the council of the municipality or municipalities in which the proposed barrio is situated.39 - . to restrain him.A great deal of latitude should be granted to the legislature not only in the expression of what may be termed legislative policy but in the elaboration and execution thereof.True. "Without this power. 4221 is hereby declared unconstitutional and void and the writ of prohibition is. Without any pronouncement regarding costs. It is manifestly contrary to the first principles of civil liberty and natural justice. 68 of the Revised Admin Code. December 24. Here the sovereign and absolute power resides in the people. discretion may not be vested in a manner so unqualified and absolute as provided in Act No. granted. since barrios are units of municipalities?" .Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 4221. So ordered. . legislation would become oppressive and yet imbecile. . since Sec. from passing in audit any expenditure of public funds in implementation of contested EOs FACTS .Pelaez alleged that such are null and void. cannot even create a barrio. as well as his representatives and agents. can he create a municipality which is composed of several barrios.Auditor General answered that this can be done. we believe that in matters of general of general legislation like that which treats of criminals in general. . These executive orders created 33 municipalities. 68 has been impliedly repealed by RA 2370 and constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power. (Angara case) Decision WHEREFORE.
Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 HELD 1. name any new subdivision so created. 682 of the Revised Admin Code amounts to an undue delegation of legislative power 2. 68 is deemed repealed The (Governor-General) President of the Philippines may by executive order define the boundary. there would no longer be any legal impediment to a statutory grant of authority to the President to do anything which.the limits of which are sufficiently determinate or determinable to which the delegate must conform in the performance of his functions.40 - . Such is not the nature of the powers dealt with in section 68. carried out or implemented by the delegate and (b) fix a standard .it must set forth therein the policy to be executed. The power of control under this provision implies the right of the President to interfere in the exercise of such discretion BUT this power is denied by the Constitution to the Executive. WON the power of the President to create municipalities under Sec. separate any political division other than a province. it is "strictly a legislative function" or solely and exclusively the exercise of legislative power.If the validity of the delegation of powers made in Section 68 were upheld."Public welfare" and "public interest. and may change the seat of government within any subdivision to such place therein as the public welfare may require: Provided. or boundaries. with the recommendation and advice of the head of the Department having executive control of such officer. WON Sec. or other political subdivision.YES Ratio The authority to create municipal corporations is essentially legislative in nature. ISSUE/S 1. That the authorization of the (Philippine Legislature) Congress of the Philippines shall first be obtained whenever the boundary of any province or subprovince is to be defined or any province is to be divided into one or more subprovinces. calling for the determination of questions of fact. that said law: (a) be complete in itself . insofar as local governments are concerned. shall redistrict the territory of the several officers affected and assign such officers to the new districts so formed.Section 10 (1) of Article VII of our fundamental law ordains: The President shall have control of all the executive departments. it is "purely a legislative question " or a political question. . may divide any province into one or more subprovinces. In the language of other courts. exercise general supervision over all local governments as may be provided by law. municipality. Such grant of authority would be a virtual abdication of the powers of Congress in favor of the Executive. may be required by public welfare or public interest. The President cannot new municipality can be created without creating new barrios. by placing old barrios under the jurisdiction of the new municipality. or offices. NON-DELEGATION DOCTRINE ." are sufficient standards for a valid delegation of the authority to execute the law. Reasoning Section 68 of the Revised Administrative Code does not meet these well settled requirements for a valid delegation of the power to fix the details in the enforcement of a law. in his opinion. The question of whether or not "public interest" demands the exercise of such power is not one of fact. and increase or diminish the territory comprised therein. subprovince. But." Although Congress may delegate to another branch of the Government the power to fill in the details in the execution. [township] municipal district. it is essential. and take care that the laws be faithfully executed. enforcement or administration of a law. the (Governor-General) President of the Philippines. When action by the (Governor-General) President of the Philippines in accordance herewith makes necessary a change of the territory under the jurisdiction of any administrative officer or any judicial officer. to forestall a violation of the principle of separation of powers.grants to administrative officers of powers related to the exercise of their administrative functions. into such portions as may be required. bureaus. such as. 2 . of any province. . merge any of such subdivisions or portions with another. the doctrine laid down in Calalang v Williams must be construed in relation to the specific facts and issues involved .
said Sec 68. Administrative Order No.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 determine the existence of facts under which creation of a municipality will result. approved on March 10. 4136. respondent Judge ordered the issuance of a preliminary injunction directed against the enforcement of such administrative order. as part of the Revised Administrative Code. -This he followed on May 28. 1970. October 24. of which the Reflector Law is an amendment. EDU v ERICTA 35 SCRA 481 FERNANDO. HELD No. implementing such legislation be nullified as an undue exercise of legislative power. such control does not include the authority either to abolish an executive department or bureau. YES Reasoning Even if it did entail an undue delegation of legislative powers. must be deemed repealed by the subsequent adoption of the Constitution. on his behalf and that of other motorists. 1970. may. Disposition The Executive Orders in question are hereby declared null and void ab initio and the respondent (Auditor General) permanently restrained from passing in audit any expenditure of public funds in implementation of said Executive Orders or any disbursement by the municipalities above referred to. that what is delegable is not the power to create municipalities but only the power to .41 - . BENGZON [concur & dissent] . for being violative of the due process clause. which is utterly incompatible and inconsistent with said statutory enactment. -SolGen filed MFR -On June 9. in the event that respondent Judge would hold said statute constitutional. 2. respondent Judge denied the motion for reconsideration of the order of injunction. 1970 with a manifestation wherein he sought as an alternative remedy that. hence this petition for certiorari and prohibition ISSUE WON Admninstrative Order No. so long as the same or its officers act within the scope of their authority. in 1935. as it certainly does. 2 of the Land Transportation Commissioner. . 1917. since it says that the President "may by executive order" exercise the powers therein granted. -It is not to be lost sight of that under Republic Act No.The test is said to lie in whether the statute allows any discretion on the delegate as to whether the municipal corporation should be created. filed on May 20. with the approval of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications. there is an attempted delegation of legislative power and the statute is invalid. If so. 1970 NATURE Petition for certiorari and prohibition FACTS -Galo. The power to create a municipality is legislative in character. petitioner. or to create a new one. issue rules and regulations for its implementation as long as they do not conflict with its provisions -It is a fundamental principle flowing from the doctrine of separation of powers that Congress may not delegate its legislative power to the two interfere with local governments. as the Land Transportation Commissioner. Now Section 68 no doubt gives the President such discretion. 1970 a suit for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction assailing the validity of the Reflector Law as an invalid exercise of the police power. American authorities have therefore favored the view that it cannot be delegated. -On May 28. 2 is invalid for being contrary to the principle of non-delegation of legislative power. Manifestly.The issue is whether the legislature can validly delegate to the Executive such power.
there must be a standard. It could be implied from the policy and purpose of the act considered as a whole. Exconde: "It is well establish in this jurisdiction that. maps out its boundaries and specifies the public agency to apply it. giving rise to the adoption. B. -What cannot be delegated is the authority under the Constitution to make laws and to alter and repeal them. -Justice Laurel: The principle of non-delegation "has been made to adapt itself the complexities of modern governments. the non-delegation objection is easily met. In the Reflector Law. The standard though does not have to be spelled out specifically. with the growing complexity of modern life. and delegation of authority or discretion as to its execution to exercised under and in pursuance of the law. and what is the scope of his authority. that the regulation be not in contradiction with it. who is to do it. -The standard may be either express or implied. subject to the exception that local governments may over local affairs participate in its exercise. the executive or administrative office designated may in pursuance of the above guidelines promulgate supplemental rules and regulations." -Justice J. and the increased difficulty of administering the laws. for the reason that the legislature often finds it impracticable (if not impossible) to anticipate and proved for the multifarious and complex situations that may be met in carrying the law in effect. Accordingly. nevertheless the latter may constitutionally delegate authority to promulgate rules and regulations to implement a given legislation and effectuate its policies. of the principle of "subordinate legislation" not only in the United States and England but in practically all modern governments. which constitutionally may not be done. clearly the legislative objective is public safety. -To avoid the taint of unlawful . A standard thus defines legislative policy. -To determine whether or not there is an undue delegation of legislative power the inquiry must be directed to the scope and definiteness of the measure enacted. If the former. L. It is the criterion by which legislative purpose may be carried out. to which no valid objection call be made. which implies at the very least that the legislature itself determines matters of principle and lay down fundamental policy.42 - .. marks its limits.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 delegation. within certain limits. Concepcion: "It is one other branches of the government. Reyes in People vs. the multiplication of the subjects of governmental regulation. " -Chief Justice. -A distinction has rightfully been made between delegation of power to make the laws which necessarily involves a discretion as to what it shall be.. Thereafter. The legislature does not abdicate its functions when it describes what job must be done. the test is the completeness of the statute in all its term and provisions when it leaves the hands of the legislature. All that is required is that the regulation should germane to the objects and purposes of the law. It indicates the circumstances under which the legislative command is to be effected. there is a constantly growing tendency toward the delegation of greater powers by the legislature and toward the approval of the practice by the courts. -The Constitution is thus not to be regarded as denying the legislature the necessary resources of flexibility and practicability. but conform to the standards that the law prescribes . while the making of laws is a non-delegable activity that corresponds exclusively to Congress.
of which it is an amendment. issued on June 30. There is likewise a categorical affirmation of the power of petitioner as Land Transportation Commissioner to promulgate rules and regulations to give life to and translate into actuality such fundamental purpose. -The respondents' Answer demonstrated that the assailed Letter of Instruction was a valid exercise of the police power. AGUSTIN v EDU 88 SCRA 195 FERNANDO. 1979 NATURE Petition for prohibition FACTS -Letter of Instruction No. 229 (1974) as amended by Letter of Instruction No. 4136. That it is oppressive. clearly violates the provisions of the New Constitution on due process. construed together with the Land Transportation Code. 2 can easily survive the attack. if the law authorizing the. His Administrative Order No. including expressways or limited access roads. confiscatory and contrary to the precepts of our compassionate New Society. -Petitioner came to court alleging that Letter of Instruction 229. the rule is that the delegated powers fall under the second category. Letter of Instruction No. arbitrary. or highway. 1978 lifted such suspension and in pursuance thereof. far-fromformidable. Feb. 1977. Republic Act No.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 and the validity of Administrative Order No. 716. delegation furnishes a reasonable standard which "sufficiently marks the field within which the Administrator is to act so that it may be known whether he has kept within it in compliance with the legislative will. that the implementing rules and regulations of respondent Land Transportation Commissioner do not constitute unlawful delegation of legislative power and that the hazards posed by such obstructions to traffic have been recognized by international bodies concerned with traffic safety. 2 issued in the implementation thereof are sustained. as amended. -The implementing rules and regulations prepared by the respondent Land Transportation Commissioner on December 10. 479 (1976) required every motor vehicle owner to procure and use one pair of a reflectorized triangular early warning device whenever any vehicle is stalled or disabled or is parked for thirty (30) minutes or more on any street. Disposition Petition is granted. the rules and regulations prepared by respondent Commission were approved for immediate implementation by respondent Minister of Public Works and Communication. ISSUE 1. His power is clear. and another thing to delegate the authority to fix the details in the execution of enforcement of a policy set out in the law itself.43 - . There has been no abuse. ordered a six-month period of suspension insofar as the installation of early warning device (EWD) as a preregistration requirement for motor vehicles was concerned. the 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals of which Philippines was a signatory and which was duly ratified and the United Nations Organization. The constitutionality of the Reflector Law . equal protection and delegation of police power. leaves no doubt as to the stress and emphasis on public safety which is the prime consideration in statutes of this character. WON the implementing rules and regulations of respondent Land Transportation Commissioner thing is to delegate the power to determine what the law shall be. launched against it by respondent Galo. unreasonable. on January 25." -The Reflector Law. 2. 1976 were not enforced as President Marcos. Briefly stated.
. at war with the principle of international morality. ." The 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals is impressed with such a character.44 - . NO.D. the 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals and the United Nations Organization (U. . adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of FACTS -Petitioner filed with the Ministry of Labor a notice of strike for unfair labor practices allegedly committed by private respondent company inviolation of their existing collective bargaining agreement. which is. the Ministry of Labor pursuant to law. the principal cause of the controversy. and in effect make or unmake the law on free collective bargaining. No. Thereafter. Disposition Petition DISMISSED FREE TELEPHONE WORKERS UNION v MINISTER OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT 108 SCRA 757 FERNANDO.N. 130 insofar as it amends Article 264 of the Labor Code delegating to the Minister of Labor the power and discretion to assume jurisdiction constitute unlawful delegation of legislative power HELD 1. Such power. 1979 NATURE Petition for certiorari Supreme Court before the certified the labor dispute to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration and the holding of any strike at private respondent establishment was enjoined. according to petitioner union. Reasoning The Court dismissed the petition for prohibition ruling that the Letter of Instruction in question was issued in the exercise of the State's police power intended to promote public safety. -Several conciliation meetings called by the Ministry followed. 2." It cannot be disputed then that this Declaration of Principle found in the Constitution possesses relevance: "The Philippines . [Whereas]. It is not for this country to repudiate a commitment to which it had pledged its word. and that the country cannot repudiate its commitment to international bodies and the accepted principles of international law. 130 insofar as it amends Article 264 of the Labor Code delegating to the Minister of Labor the power and discretion to assume jurisdiction and/or certify strikes for compulsory arbitration to the NLRC. -In a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court. that there has been no undue delegation of legislative power as a standard has been set. . moreover. 207. ISSUE 2.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 the land. Hearing was subsequently conducted whereas private respondent agreed to the indefinite preventive suspension of the provisions of the Code of Conduct. WON Batas Pambansa Blg. is an undue delegation of legislative powers and is contrary to the assurance of the State to the workers' right to self organization and collective bargaining. the said Vienna Convention. Feb. The concept of Pacta sunt servanda stands in the way of such an attitude. . recommended the enactment of local legislation for the installation of road safety signs and devices. The petition itself quoted these two whereas clauses of the assailed Letter of Instruction: "[Whereas]. . . particularly the unilateral and arbitrary implementation of a Code of Conduct to the detriment and interest of its members. petitioner union submits that Batas Pambansa Blg. which was ratified by the Philippine Government under P.). is within the competence of the President who can best determine national interests when a strike is in progress. . the hazards posed by such obstructions to traffic have been recognized by international bodies concerned with traffic safety. .
" Pursuant to said franchise.. and in effect make or unmake the law on free collective bargaining. while allowable under the Constitution and quite understandable in labor disputes affected with a national interest. Philippine Global Communications." Under this franchise. there is no ruling on the question of whether or not it has been unconstitutionally applied in this case. is an undue delegation of legislative powers and hence unconstitutional HELD 2. NO. to be free from the taint of unconstitutionality. station or stations and associated equipment and facilities for international satellite communications. petitioner puts on record that it undertook the certain activities and established the various installations: By designation of the Republic of the Philippines. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company. as well as in the Convention and the Operating Agreement of the International Maritime Satellite Organization (INMARSAT) of 53 member nations. 4. for being repugnant to the regime of self-organization and free collective bargaining. Eastern Telecommunications Phils. construct. the petitioner is also the sole signatory for the Philippines in the Agreement and the Operating Agreement relating to the International Telecommunications Satellite Organization (INTELSAT) of 115 member nations. must be exercised in accordance with the constitutional mandate of protection to labor.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 judicial determination. PHILCOMSAT was granted "a franchise to establish. Since 1968.. 5514. which two global commercial telecommunications satellite corporations were collectively established by various states in line with the principles set forth in Resolution 1721 (XVI) of the General Assembly of the United Nations. Reasoning the unconstitutional of the act has not been demonstrated and that any ruling on the question of unconstitutional application would be premature in the absence of factual determination by the Ministry of Labor and the NLRC. 130 insofar as it empowers the Minister of Labor to assume jurisdiction over labor disputes causing or likely to cause strikes or lockouts adversely affecting the national interest and thereafter decide it or certify the same to the NLRC is not on its face unconstitutional for being violative of the doctrine of non-delegation of legislative power. maintain and operate in the Philippines. however. 1989 NATURE Petition to annul and set aside an Order issued by respondent Commissioner Jose Luis Alcuaz of the National Telecommunications Commission FACTS By virtue of Republic Act No. It stressed further that compulsory arbitration must be exercised in accordance with the constitutional mandate of protection to labor. It must be stressed anew. To repeat. as on the facts alleged. Batas Pambansa Blg. the petitioner has been leasing its satellite circuits to:1. Inc. it was likewise granted the authority to "construct and operate such ground facilities as needed to deliver telecommunications services from the communications satellite system and ground terminal or terminals. that the power of compulsory arbitration. disputed by private respondent. Disposition Petition DISMISSED PHILIPPINE COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE CORPORATION v ALCUAZ 180 SCRA 218 REGALADO. and/or certify strikes for compulsory arbitration to the NLRC. Inc.. at such places as the grantee may select. the matter is not ripe for . 3.45 - . 2. Dec 18.
it has been held that even Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corp. 1987. Under Section 5 of Republic Act No. high speed data. hence there is an undue delegation of legislative power. petitioner was granted a provisional authority to continue operating its existing facilities.46 - . ISSUE WON Executive Orders Nos. Implementing said Executive Order No. Fundamental is the rule that delegation of legislative power may be sustained only upon the ground that some standard for its exercise is provided and that the legislature in making the delegation has prescribed the manner of the exercise of the delegated power. 546 and 196 are unconstitutional on the ground that the same do not fix a standard for the exercise of the power therein conferred. and to charge the rates it was then charging. pursuant to Executive Order No. Therefore. including all its facilities and services and the fixing of rates. 1988. respondent NTC in this case. and television standard conversion from European to American or vice versa. as well as the corresponding authority to charge rates therefor. otherwise. it was extended for another six (6) months. now respondent NTC. Consequently. and 5. However. 1987. On September 16.confiscatory and must have been established in the manner prescribed by the legislature. In case of a delegation of rate-fixing power.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 has been continuously operating and maintaining since 1967. to render the services it was then offering. This authority was valid for six (6) months from the date of said order. in the absence of a fixed standard. its act must both be non. Pending hearing. the delegation of power becomes unconstitutional. The NTC order now in controversy had further extended the provisional authority of the petitioner for another six (6) months. 1988. the only standard which the legislature is required to prescribe for the guidance of the administrative authority is that the rate be reasonable and just. live television in full color. but it directed the petitioner to charge modified reduced rates through a reduction of fifteen percent (15%) on the present authorized rates. telegrams. HELD NO. it also applied for a provisional authority so that it can continue to operate and maintain the above mentioned facilities. petitioner was placed under the jurisdiction. Inc. establishes a rate. PHILCOMSAT argues that the enabling act (Executive Order No. under date of September 9. control and regulation of respondent NTC. petitioner filed with respondent NTC an application for authority to continue operating and maintaining the same facilities it . 5514. However. particularly the adjudicatory powers of NTC. 196. 196 issued on June 17. 1987. or their predecessors-in-interest. Capitol Wireless. to continue providing the international satellite communications services it has likewise been providing since 1967. ITT. provide the services and charge therefor the aforesaid rates therein applied for. counted from September 16. 1988. respondents required petitioner to apply for the requisite certificate of public convenience and necessity covering its facilities and the services it renders. facsimile. petitioner was exempt from the jurisdiction of the then Public Service Commission. or up to September 16. telex. 546) of respondent NTC empowering it to fix rates for public service communications does not provide the necessary standards constitutionally required. The satellite services thus provided by petitioner enable said international carriers to serve the public with indispensable communication services. When said provisional authority expired on March 17. when the administrative agency concerned. such as overseas telephone. and to charge the current rates applied for in rendering such services.
A. Sec 13 of R. Aquino issued the questioned EO No. 429. Misamis Occidental. under Section 15(g) of Executive Order No. who is suing in the capacity of taxpayer also contends that Art. 546. Dispositive Petition granted CHIONGBIAN v ORBOS 245 SCRA 253 MENDOZA. XIX. And that her authority necessarily includes the authority to merge. Pres. It becomes important then to ascertain the nature of the power delegated to respondent NTC and the manner required by the statute for the lawful exercise thereof. No. X. .Jaldon. a resident of Zamboanga City. 6734 which was passed pursuant to Art. public interest and reasonable feasibility of maintaining effective competition of private entities in communications and broadcasting facilities. We need not go into an in-depth analysis of the pertinent provisions of .These suits challenge the validity of a provision of the Organic Act for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (or R. 429 joining provinces from other regions to another region (eg. public interest. to determine and prescribe rates pertinent to the operation of public service communications which necessarily include the power to promulgate rules and regulations in connection therewith." . Sec 18 of the 1987 Constitution).) . reorganization. which conjointly more than satisfy the requirements of a valid delegation of legislative power. .among others. wrote then President Aquino protesting E. No.A.Herein petitioners in the first case. And. Sec. which provides for the creation of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications with control and supervision over respondent NTC.They contended that the transfer of the provinces of Misamis Occidental from Region X to Region IX etc are alterations of the existing structures of governmental units. is limited by the requirements of public safety. 1995 NATURE: PROHIBITION AND CERTIORARI Facts: .Pursuant to Art. the President's authority under RA 6734 to "merge existing regions" cannot be construed to include the authority to reorganize them. Pursuant to Executive Orders Nos. wast part of Region X. respondent NTC should be guided by the requirements of public safety. respondent NTC is empowered. became part of Region IX etc. June 22.47 - . 13 of R.A. authorizing the President of the Philippines to "merge" by administrative determination the regions remaining after the establishment of the AR. in other words. XIX. 429 issued by the President pursuant to such authority. No. in the absence of an express requirement as to reasonableness. in Section 6(d) thereof. reasonable feasibility and reasonable rates. Likewise.O. No. 546 and 196. and the EO No. 6734 is unconstitutional because (1) it unduly delegates legislative power to the President by authorizing him to "merge [by administrative determination] the existing regions" or at any rate provides no standard for the exercise of the power delegated and (2) the power granted is not expressed in the title of the law. Therefore. the authority to merge does not include the authority to reorganize. in the exercise of its rate-fixing power. it is specifically provided that the national economic viability of the entire network or components of the communications systems contemplated therein should be maintained at reasonable rates. 6734(which provides for the authority of merging upon administrative determination the other regions). "Providing for the Reorganization of Administrative Regions in Mindanao. this standard may be implied.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 the law in order to conclude that respondent NTC.
economy and efficiency in the government. . Nor need it be found in the law challenged because it may be embodied in other statutes on the same subject as that of the challenged legislation. YES. etc. * Purpose was to promote "simplicity. "An Act Providing for an Organic Act for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. bureaus. and as a mere incident of his power of general supervision over local governments and control of executive departments.Also. . Sec 4 of the Constitution].A." as held in Abbas v. 5435. . municipalities and barangays but are "mere groupings of . The power conferred on the President to MERGE Admin Regions is similar to the power to adjust municipal boundaries which has been described in Pelaez v. .) 2.The choice of the President as delegate is logical because the division of the country into regions is intended to facilitate not only the administration of local governments but also the direction of executive departments which the law requires should have regional offices. WON the grant of power to him is included in the subject expressed in the title of the law. WON the merging of admin regions is an administrative matter 2.48 - . Issues: 1. bureaus and offices under Art. 4. 13 Sec 13 HELD: 1. offices. * The law provided that any reorganization plan submitted would become effective only upon the approval of Congress. he justifies the grant to the President of the power "to merge the existing regions" as something fairly embraced in the title of R. The standard is to be found in the same policy underlying the grant to the President in R. . COMELEC: "while the power to merge administrative regions is not expressly provided for in the Constitution." . 5435 granted authority to the Pres.A.He argues that the power is not limited to the merger of those regions in which the provinces and cities which took part in the plebiscite are located but that it extends to all regions in Mindanao as necessitated by the establishment of the autonomous region. . No.SOLGEN: the exercise of a power "traditionally lodged in the President." The regions themselves are not territorial and political divisions like provinces. 6734. it is a power which has traditionally been lodged with the President to facilitate the exercise of the power of general supervision over local governments [see Art.A. WON Congress has provided a sufficient standard by which the . Auditor General or as "administrative in nature." (while the CREATION of municipalities is purely a legislative matter. with the help of a Commission on Reorganization. No.He contends that there is no undue delegation of legislative power but only a grant of the power to "fill up" or provide the details of legislation because Congress did not have the facility to provide for them. X. It may simply be gathered or implied.Nature of administrative regions and the basis and purpose for their creation: * Basis: R. Comelec." because it is germane to it. VII Sec 17 of the Constitution. cities. X Sec 16 and Art. No.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 President is to be guided in the exercise of the power granted and 3.A legislative standard need not be expressed. to reorganize the different executive departments. YES. to wit.Abbas v. WON the power granted to the President is limited to the reorganization of administrative regions in which some of the provinces and cities which voted in favor of regional autonomy are found pursuant to Art.
YES." ." . 429 distorted and. The questioned EO No.E. (3) cultural and language groupings. XIX. No. It cannot be overemphasized that administrative regions are mere groupings of contiguous provinces for administrative purposes. not for political representation.There is. no abdication by Congress of its legislative power in conferring on the President the power to merge administrative regions. which all have political consequences on the right of people residing in those political units to vote and to be voted for. .The regrouping is done only on paper.There will be no "transfer" of local governments from one region to another except as they may thus be regrouped so that a province like Lanao del Norte. . (4) land area and population.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 by administrative determination merge the existing regions.S. SANTIAGO v COMELEC PANAMA REFINING CO v RYAN 293 U. (6) socio-economic development programs in the regions and (7) number of provinces and cities. But the more fundamental reason is that the President's power cannot be so limited without neglecting the necessities of administration. It involves no more than are definition or redrawing of the lines separating administrative regions for the purpose of facilitating the administrative supervision of local government units by the President and insuring the efficient delivery of essential services. . Sec 13 provides that "The provinces and cities which do not vote for inclusion in the Autonomous Region shall remain in the existing administrative regions. It is a sufficient compliance with the constitutional requirement if the title expresses the general subject and all provisions of the statute are germane to that subject. 1935 FACTS . which prohibited the transportation in interstate and foreign commerce of petroleum and the products produced or withdrawn from storage in excess of the amount for are contiguous provinces for administrative purposes. 6734. will become part of Region IX. . No. Sec 13 is not so limited. to wit: (1) contiguity and geographical features. in fact. which is at present part of Region XII.To be fundamental reason Art. therefore. . which is the establishment of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. Certainly the reorganization of the remaining administrative regions is germane to the general subject of R.A.Aggravating this unacceptable or untenable situation is EO No.49 - .O. 388 HUGHES.While Art. (2) transportation and communication facilities. YES. 429 is based on relevant criteria.This means that while non-assenting provinces and cities are to remain in the regions as designated upon the creation of the Autonomous Region. Dispositive: The petitions certiorari and prohibition DISMISSED for lack of merit. (5) existing regional centers adopted by several agencies. 4." this provision is subject to the qualification that "the President may . . January 7.EO 6199. . they may nevertheless be regrouped with contiguous provinces forming other regions as the exigency of administration may require. 3.The regrouping of contiguous provinces is not even analogous to a redistricting or to the division or merger of local governments. 429's effecting certain movements on areas which did not even participate in the plebiscite. contravened the clear intent of this provision by moving out or transferring certain political subdivisions (provinces/cities) out of their legally designated regions. XIX.
' authorized the Sec of the Interior to exercise all the powers vested in the Pres for the purpose of enforcing Sec 9(c). production of petroleum (Regulations IV. purchase.Thru EO of August 28. Sec 3(f). Any violation of any order of the Pres issued under the provisions of this subsection shall be punishable by fine of not to exceed $1k.Panama Refining Company. and Amazon Petroleum Corporation and its coplaintiffs. ISSUE WON the EOs are constitutional HELD NO. or imprisonment for not to exceed 6 months. because of unconstitutional delegation of legislative power Ratio The Legislature.The Constitution has never been regarded as denying the Congress the necessary resources of flexibility 3 permitted to be produced or withdrawn from storage by any State law or valid regulation or order prescribed by any board. or imprisonment for not to exceed 6 months. 'If any subdivision into quotas of production allocated to any State shall be made within a State any production by any person. It was reinstated by EO 6855. the Pres designated the Sec of the Interior as Administrator. based on sec 10(a) of the NIRA. and its coplaintiff.' . officer. sued to restrain officials from enforcing the laws promulgated by the Sec of Interior and questioned the constitutionality of the EOs. commission.EO 6256 approved Code of Fair Competition for the Petroleum Industry.Sec of Interior issued the regulations which included the requirement for every producer. Reasoning . pursuant to sec 9(c) of title 1 of the National Industrial Recovery Act of June 16.EO 6204. all being oil producers in Texas and owning separate properties. provides that. which states that “'The President is authorized to prohibit the transportation in interstate and foreign commerce of petroleum and the products thereof produced or withdrawn from storage in excess of the amount permitted to be produced or withdrawn from storage by any State law or valid regulation or order prescribed by any board. when a code of fair competition has been approved or prescribed by the Pres under that title. authorizing the Pres 'to prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes' of title 1 and providing that 'any violation of any such rule or regulation shall be punishable by fine of not to exceed $500. and each day such violation continues shall be deemed a separate offense. or both. to prevent its being a pure delegation of legislative power. Section 3 of this code in excess of any such quota assigned to him. 'any violation of any provision in any transaction in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce shall be a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof an offender shall be fined not more than $500 for each offense. officer.' . as person is defined in Article I.50 - .” . . . 6284-a. and other information regarding the sale. shall be deemed an unfair trade practice and in violation of this code. or both. 1933. to exercise on his behalf all the powers vested in him under that act and code. .Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 including full authority to designate and appoint such agents and to set up such boards and agencies as he may see fit. a producer having oil and gas leases in Texas. giving information re: their residence and post office address. and to promulgate such rules and regulations as he may deem necessary. was enacted.By EO No. and the Dept of the Interior as the federal agency. commission. as owner of an oil refining plant in Texas. title 1 of the NIRA. or other duly authorized agency of a State. the 2nd par of sec 4 of art III3 was eliminated. must enjoin upon the agent a certain course of procedure and certain rules of decision in the performance of its function. or other duly authorized agency of a State. 193. purchaser or shipper of petroleum to file a monthly statement under oath. V and VII) .
6199. the Court has recognized that there are limits of delegation which there is no constitutional authority to transcend. So far as this section is concerned. if our constitutional system is to be maintained. It does not state whether or in what circumstances or under what conditions the President is to prohibit the transportation of the amount of petroleum or petroleum products produced in excess of the state's permission. The effort by ingenious and diligent construction to supply a criterion still permits such a breadth of authorized action as essentially to commit to the President the functions of a Legislature rather than those of an executive or administrative officer executing a declared legislative policy.Authorizations given by Congress to selected instrumentalities for the purpose of ascertaining the existence of facts to which legislation is directed have constantly been sustained. no definition of circumstances and conditions in which the transportation is to be allowed or prohibited.The Congress left the matter to the President without standard or rule. Disposition EO Nos.The Congress in section 9(c) thus declares no policy as to the transportation of the excess production. devolving upon others the duty to carry out the declared legislative policy.To uphold the delegation there is need to discover in the terms of the act a standard reasonably clear whereby discretion must be governed. It establishes no creterion to govern the President's course. There is no requirement. as he may see fit. while leaving to selected instrumentalities the making of subordinate rules within prescribed limits and the determination of facts to which the policy as declared by the Legislature is to apply. Section 9(c) is brief and unambiguous. It leaves to the states and to their constituted authorities the determination of what production shall be permitted. are without constitutional authority. SEPARATE OPINION CARDOZO [dissenting] . the Congress has declared no policy. or not to lay it down. . to be dealt with as he pleased. As to the transportation of oil production in .Thus.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 excess of state permission. 6204. It does not qualify the President's authority by reference to the basis or extent of the state's limitation of production. it gives to the President an unlimited authority to determine the policy and to lay down the prohibition. It does not require any finding by the President as a condition of his action. Such a standard is not lacking in respect of the prohibitions permitted by this section when the act with all its reasonable implications is considered as a whole. . has laid down no rule. and the regulations issued by the Sec of the Interior. in every case in which the question has been raised. . Moreover the Congress may not only give such authorizations to determine specific facts. which will enable it to perform its function in laying down policies and establishing standards.When the President is invested with legislative authority as the delegate of Congress in carrying out a declared policy. We find nothing in section 1 which limits or controls the authority conferred by section 9(c). has established no standard. but may establish primary standards. What the standard is becomes the and practicality. But the constant recognition of the necessity and validity of such provisions and the wide range of administrative authority which has been developed by means of them cannot be allowed to obscure the limitations of the authority to delegate. he necessarily acts under the constitutional restriction applicable to such a delegation. And disobedience to his order is made a crime punishable by fine and imprisonment.51 - . . We think that section 9(c) goes beyond those limits.
which cannot foresee to-day the developments of tomorrow in their nearly infinite variety. that the prohibition will tend to effectuate the declared policies of the act-not merely his own conception of its policies. or an administrative agency supervised in the same way. The means have been prescribed by Congress. ABAKADA GURO v EXEC. undirected by any extrinsic guide. . accompanying the grant. 2005 NATURE Petitions for certiorari and prohibition FACTS .On May 24. SEC. He is the Chief Executive of the nation. to which all the other ends are tributary and mediate. there must be elasticity of adjustment. upon discovering them. These being ascertained. .A reference. but not to any others. the Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining government from implementing the law in response to pivotal inquiry.The President was not required either by the Constitution or by any statute to state the reasons that had induced him to exercise the granted power. ERMITA GR No. When it clothed the Pres with power to impose such a restriction-to prohibit the flow of oil illegally produced-it laid upon him a mandate to inquire and determine whether the conditions in that particular industry were such at any given time as to make restriction helpful to the declared objectives of the act and to the ultimate attainment of industrial recovery. is not a quasi judicial officer.The President has the privilege of choice between one standard and another. the test is plainly this. There must be sensible approximation. but none whatever as to the means.52 - . in respect of the formal qualities of his acts. It is enough that the grant of power had been made and that pursuant to that grant he had signified the will to act. as to the occasion.The President. The separation of powers between the Executive and Congress is not a doctrinaire concept to be made use of with pedantic rigor. What he does is to inquire into the industrial facts as they exist from time to time. but the policies announced by section 1. Officers and bodies such as those may be required by reviewing courts to express their decision in formal and explicit findings to the end that review may be intelligent. . if any. 168207 AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ. in response to the practical necessities of government. to the policy of Congress. in any personal or willful way. in the light of the conditions of the industry as disclosed from time to time. the violation of a standard impelling him to action or inaction according to its observed effect upon industrial recovery-the ultimate end. to the restrictions. Discretion is not unconfined and vagrant. whose rulings are subject to review upon certiorari or appeal. There has been no grant to the Executive of any roving commission to inquire into evils and then. is a sufficient definition of a standard to make the statute valid. he is not to prefer one standard to another in any subjective attitude of mind.The Pres has choice.Congress was aware that for the recovery of national well-being there might be need of temp restriction upon production in one industry or another. when acting in the exercise of a delegated power. the President signed into law Republic Act 9337 or the VAT Reform Act. 2005. 2005. . If we look to the whole structure of the statute. He is to study the facts objectively.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 . . though within limits. as appears by the very heading of the title. September 1. do anything he pleases. . Such is not the position or duty of the President. that the President is to forbid the transportation of the oil when he believes. Before the law was to take effect on July 1. exercising a power committed to him by Congress. and subject. express or implied.
If either of these two instances has occurred. . L. constitutes undue delegation of legislative power HELD NO. the Secretary of Finance. v United States 295 U. It is simply a delegation of ascertainment of facts upon which enforcement and administration of the increased rate under the law is contingent. The legislature has made the operation of the 12% rate effective January 1. The intent and will to increase the VAT rate to 12% came from Congress and the task of the President is to simply execute the legislative policy. a slew of petitions for certiorari and prohibition questioning the constitutionality of the new law. 2006. who must do it. Highlighting the absence of discretion is the fact that the word shall is used in the common proviso. A. The Secretary of Finance becomes the means or tool by which legislative policy is determined and implemented.NON-DELEGATION ISSUE: The new law in its Sections 4. Reasoning The case before the Court is not a delegation of legislative power.S. His function is to gather and collate statistical data and other pertinent information and verify if any of the two conditions laid out by Congress is present.Thus. . the Secretary of Finance is not acting as the alter ego of the President or even her subordinate. 2005. to determine and declare the event upon which its expressed will is to take effect. Its use in a statute denotes an imperative obligation and is inconsistent with the idea of discretion. . May 27. He is acting as the agent of the legislative department. The use of the word shall connote a mandatory order. 5 and 6 granted the Secretary of Finance the authority to ascertain whether by December 31. considering that he possesses all the facilities to gather data and information and has a much broader perspective to properly evaluate them. Congress did not delegate the power to tax but the mere implementation of the law. Then the 12% VAT rate must be imposed by the President effective January 1. in our complex economy that is frequently the only A.53 - . Ratio Congress does not abdicate its functions or unduly delegate power when it describes what job must be done. 495 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES . contingent upon a specified fact or condition.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 way in which the legislative process can go forward. No discretion would be exercised by the President. and what is the scope of his authority. which cannot be evaded by the President. 1935 . 2006. especially on account of the recommendatory power granted to the Secretary of Finance. It is a clear directive to impose the 12% VAT rate when the specified conditions are present. ISSUE WON the RA 9337's stand-by authority to the Executive to increase the VAT rate. . must submit such information to the President. Schechter Poultry Corp.In making his recommendation to the President on the existence of either of the two conditions. This is constitutionally permissible.There is no undue delegation of legislative power but only of the discretion as to the execution of a law. the VAT collection as a percentage of GDP of the previous year exceeds 2 and 4/5% or the national government deficit as a percentage of GDP of the previous year exceeds 1 and 1/2%. Disposition Petition is DENIED. it is the ministerial duty of the President to immediately impose the 12% rate upon the existence of any of the conditions specified by Congress. This is a duty. It leaves the entire operation or nonoperation of the 12% rate upon factual matters outside of the control of the executive.
Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 monopolies or monopolistic practices are forbidden.Section 3 of the National Industrial Recovery Act provides that "codes of fair competition. There was no limitation on things that could be subject to the “codes of fair competition. and may provide such exceptions and exemptions from the provisions of such code. Authority wasn’t really delegated to the President.Furthermore. Congress may leave to selected instrumentalities the making of subordinate rules within prescribed limits. NIRA gave President the authority to approve “codes of fair competition” applied by a trade or industrial group. (YES. Their provisions [p496] are to be enforced by injunctions from the federal courts. The President may "impose such conditions (including requirements for the making of reports and the keeping of accounts) for the protection of consumers. and the determination of facts to which the policy. or may be prescribed by him on his own motion.Schechter was found to have violated the “Live Poultry Code” promulgated under NIRA (National Industrial Recovery Act) but written by industry groups then approved by the President through the Ag Sec’y. there were no statutory standards or procedural safeguards for promulgating the codes.This code was found to be an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power because: 1) private groups were given lawmaking function and discretion to make the policies." which shall be the " standards of fair competition" for the trades and industries to which they relate. but it must itself lay down the policies and establish standards. and in the furtherance of the public interest." Codes permitting . employees and others. as declared by Congress. competitors.” 3) no formal procedures constraining the President when he decides to approve/disapprove the codes. ISSUE WON the Live Poultry Code is unconstitutional for being an undue delegation of legislative powers. 1933. and is to be punished as a crime against the United States. is to apply. which just deals with communications). It was an overbroad delegation of authority. and "any violation of any of their provisions in any transaction in or affecting interstate commerce" is to be deemed an unfair method of competition within the meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act.) HELD RATIO: Congress is not permitted by the Constitution to abdicate.54 - . Before approving. is unconstitutional and the Act is also unconstitutional. as applied in this case. in his discretion. that although Congress delegating power FACTS ." A code prescribed by him is to have the same effect as one approved on application. + Cardozo wrote a strong concurrence saying that this was a situation of “delegation run riot”. . or to transfer to others. . the essential legislative functions with which it is vested. deems necessary "to effectuate the policy herein declared. may be approved by the President upon application of representative associations of the trades or industries to be affected. and must find that it will "tend to effectuate the policy of this title." as he.The delegation of legislative power sought to be made to the President by § 3 of the National Industrial Recovery Act of June 16. the President is to make certain findings as to the character of the association presenting the code and absence of design to promote monopoly or oppress small enterprises. No deliberation was required in acting to promulgate the codes. REASONING: . because it exceeds the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce and invades the power reserved exclusively to the States . 2) It covered every sector of the economy (not like the FCC.
to executive can sometimes be ok.”.55 - . Plaintiff Walker was provided food order and rent. by any board. Disposition Reversed and remanded with directions 2. INC. Subsequently. or both. Fair and consistent application of such requirements requires that Roughton establish written standards and regulations. . 388 HUGHES. January 7. by any board. assistance to both were terminated and they received neither notice. 6199.S. WON the injunction must issue HELD 1.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 . prohibited 'the transportation in interstate and foreign commerce of petroleum and the products thereof produced or withdrawn from storage in excess of the amount permitted to be produced or withdrawn from storage by any State law or valid regulation or order prescribed thereunder.2d 750 PER CURIAM. (Goldberg v Kelly) Reasoning General assistance welfare grants are clearly state action under provisions of statute relating to public aid and are therefore subject to due process protection. officer. YES Ratio Welfare recipients must be provided with adequate notice and an evidentiary hearing before benefits may be discontinued. ASCERTAINMENT OF FACT PANAMA REFINING CO v RYAN 293 U. February 27.000. congress delegating power to industrial or trade associations was out of the question. 1933 which states that: “The President is authorized to prohibit the transportation in interstate and foreign commerce of petroleum and the products thereof produced or withdrawn from storage in excess of the amount permitted to be produced or withdrawn from storage by any State law or valid regulation or order prescribed thereunder.Defendant admitted that he and his staff determine eligibility based upon their own unwritten personal standards. PERMISSIBLE DELEGATION a. explanation nor information as to the right of appeal. In this capacity he administers the general township assistance program which provides locally collected taxes for distribution as welfare to needy township residents.Plaintiff White received assistance in the form of food orders. commission. the President by Executive Order No. or imprisonment for not to exceed six months. FEDERAL ENERGY ADMINISTRATION v AL GONQUIN SNG. Any violation of any order of the President issued under the provisions of this subsection shall be punishable by fine of not to exceed $1.Plaintiff Silagy aplied for assistance at least thrice but was always denied without informing her of the reasons supporting her rejection or the right to appeal. WHITE V ROUGHTON 530 F. or other duly authorized agency of a State. ISSUE/S 1. FACTS . Defendant as administrator of the general assistance program has the responsibility to administer the program to ensure the fair and consistent application of eligibility requirements. . 1935 FACTS: -Based on section 9(c) of title 1 of the National Industrial Recovery Act of June 16. .Roughton is supervisor of the town of the City of Champaign Township.1976 NATURE Appeal from order denying application for preliminary injunction to prevent termination by defendant of general assistance granted to plaintiffs.
The Court found that the act before it was not inconsistent with the principle of delegation of powers. 1933. ISSUE: . 'including full authority to designate and appoint such agents and to set up such boards and agencies as he may see fit. 'either expressly or conditionally.' 'He was the mere agent of the law-making department to ascertain and declare the event upon which its expressed will was to take effect.On July 15. or other duly authorized agency of a State. invest the president with the power of legislation. that it did not 'in any real sense. (AS TO PERMISSIBLE DELEGATIONS) -The Constitution has never been regarded as denying to the Congress the necessary resources of flexibility and practicality. It gave the President the power to suspend trade relations with Great Britain until such determination by the President. Moreover the Congress commission. First of which was Aurora v US wherein the Congress left the power to determine whether Great Britain modified her edicts so as not to violate the Neutral Commerce Act of the US. 6204.' it could not be said 'that in ascertaining that fact. and to promulgate such rules and regulations as he may deem necessary. The Court ruled that it could see no sufficient reason why the Legislature should not exercise its discretion in reviving the act of 1809.” the President. HELD: Yes the delegation of such power was undue. Without capacity to give authorizations of that sort we should have the anomaly of a legislative power which in many circumstances calling for its exertion would be but a futility -the Court cited several cases wherein the Congress delegated the power of ascertaining facts for the implementation of orders. by Executive Order No.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 WON there was an undue delegation of legislative powers when the Legislature.' -Under section 10(a) of the National Industrial Recovery Act. which will enable it to perform its function in laying down policies and establishing standards. authorizing the President “to prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes' of title 1 of the National Industrial Recovery Act and providing that 'any violation of any such rule or regulation shall be punishable by fine of not to exceed $500.56 - . while leaving to selected instrumentalities the making of subordinate rules within prescribed limits and the determination of facts to which the policy as declared by the Legislature is to apply. and in issuing his proclamation.' . or imprisonment for not to exceed six months. as their judgment should direct. 1933. 1933. or both. the Secretary of the Interior issued regulations to carry out the President's orders of July 11 and 14. through section 9(c) of title 1 of the National Industrial Recovery Act of June 16. the regulations and the orders of the President were questioned by oil companies affected by the Orders.' -authorizations given by Congress to selected instrumentalities for the purpose of ascertaining the existence of facts to which legislation is directed have constantly been sustained. in obedience to the legislative will. They question the basis of the power of the President to make such orders as an undue delegation of legislative powers. authorized the Secretary of the Interior to exercise all the powers vested in the President 'for the purpose of enforcing Section 9(c) of said act and said order' of July 11. officer.' As 'the suspension was absolutely required when the president ascertained the existence of a particular fact. 1933. he exercised the function of making laws.' -Field v Clark where the case was about an Act which gave the President the power to suspend the introduction of products from different countries which imposed duties or other exactions on agricultural produce of the US. allowed the President to issue the Orders complained of.
together with the basis upon which the several grades are determined. provincial governors. devolving upon others the duty to carry out the declared legislative policy -examples for the allowing of the Congress to authorize instrumentalities to fix standards were the Radio Act of 1927 and Hampton Jr. WON the law in question delegates to the Fiber Board legislative powers or administrative functions to carry may not only give such authorizations to determine specific facts. Section 1772. There is no requirement. As to the transportation of oil production in excess of state permission. Hence. and advised that he would not be permitted to export the abaca in question without a certificate of the Fiber Standardization Board. are unconstitutional and void. no definition of circumstances and conditions in which the transportation is to be allowed or prohibited” DISSENTING Cardozo supra LOVINA v MORENO b. Such order shall have the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. If it is considered expedient to change these standards at any time. copies of the same shall be supplied gratis to the foreign markets. Each grade shall have its proper name and designation which. inspected. the Congress has declared no policy. August 27. but may establish primary standards.57 - . which was denied. and to such other persons and agencies as shall make request therefor. shall be defined by the said Board in a general order. inspection and certification of fibers and. ISSUE/S 1. maguey. or sisal or other fibrous products for which standard grades have been established by the Director of Agriculture to be laden aboard a vessel clearing for a foreign port. as amended. has established no standard. Section 1244. municipal presidents. and for the dissemination of information. & Co. this appeal by defs. A collector of customs shall not permit abaca. November 8. without being graded. 1929 NATURE Appeal from the decision of CFI .The petitioner for a number of years has been and is now engaged in the production of abaca and its exportation to foreign markets.CFI held that sections 1722 and 1783 of the Administrative Code. and certified as in this law provided. v United States -in the present case the Court ruled that “section 9(c) goes beyond those limits. 1927.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 FACTS . The Fiber Standardization Board shall determine the official standards for the various commercial grades of Philippine fibers that are or may hereafter be produced on the Philippine Islands for shipment abroad. has laid down no rule. He then filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila a petition for a writ of mandamus. sections 1772 and 1244 of that Code. Section 1788. FILLING IN OF DETAILS ALEGRE v COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS 53 PHIL 394 JOHNS. baled. . alleging that the provisions of the Administrative Code for the grading. in particular. notice shall be given in the local and foreign markets for a period of at least six months before the new standards shall go into effect. unless the shipment conforms to the requirements of law relative to the shipment of such fibers. are unconstitutional and void. he applied to the respondent for a permit to export one hundred bales of abaca to England. No fiber within the purview of this law shall be exported from the Philippine Islands in quantity greater than the amount sufficient to make one bale.
This Book shall be applicable to all agencies as defined in the next succeeding section. The criticism that there is partiality or even fraud in the administration of the law is not an argument against its constitutionality. an agency. amendment. Section 2. including its regulations. which provides for the inspection. and has created a board or that purpose and vested it with the power and authority to do the actual work. military establishments in all matters relating exclusively to Armed Forces personnel. ADMINISTRATIVE RULEMAKING BOOK VII ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE CHAPTER 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 1. out the purpose and intent (details) of the law for its more efficient administration HELD . grade and bale the hemp. (3) "Rate" means any charge to the public for a service open to all and upon the same terms. fixes and describes the procedures in. .As used in this Book: (1) "Agency" includes any department.The act in question. without any means of its .58 - . office. the Constitutional Commissions. or practice requirements of. the Legislature has said that before any hemp is exported from the Philippine Islands it must be inspected. The term includes memoranda or statements concerning the internal administration or management of an agency not affecting the rights of. to enforce and carry out the intent of the law. kilometerage and other special rates which shall be imposed by law or regulation to be observed and followed by any person. and officials in the exercise of disciplinary power as provided by law. privileges. except the Congress. government corporations with respect to functions regulating private right. and from necessity. and state universities and colleges. occupation or business.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 enforcement. mileage. or schedules thereof. grant rights or privileges. bureau. classifications. That is not a delegation o legislative power. grading and bailing of hemp the Fiber Board with the power and authority to devise ways and means for its execution. the Legislature could not inspect. issue licenses. . Scope. (2) "Rule" means any agency statement of general applicability that implements or interprets a law. In the very nature of things. research institutions with respect to licensing functions. . . authority or officer of the National Government authorized by law or executive order to make rules. (4) "Rule making" means an agency process for the formulation.The law provides in detail for the inspection. grading and baling of hemp. commission. and adjudicate cases. graded and baled. including individual or joint rates. to carry out the purpose and intent of the law. and that the powers given by the Legislature to the board are for an administrative purposes. In legal effect. the Board of Pardons and Parole. the public. the Judiciary. or procedure available to. tolls. It is nothing more than a delegation of administrative power in the Fiber Board. the power to do that would have to be vested in a board of commission. or repeal of a rule. c. Definitions. as well as commutation. is not a delegation of legislative power to the Fiber Board. Disposition The judgment of the lower court is reversed and the petition is dismissed.The petitioner's contention would leave the law.
corporation. or remedy. right. rate fixing and granting of rights and privileges. public or private organization of any character other than an agency. (9) "Adjudication" means an agency process for the formulation of a final order. shall carry out the requirements of this section under pain of disciplinary action. recognition of any claim. revocation. charges or fees. limitation or other condition affecting the liberty of any person. amendment. (14) "Agency proceeding" means any agency process with respect to rule-making. modification or conditioning of a license. renewal. or injunctive in form. negative. adjudication and licensing. withdrawal. (13) "Relief" includes the whole or part of any grant of money. in which the legal rights. compensation. limitation.59 - . the destruction. license. passport. assistance. Rules in force on the date of effectivity of this Code which are not filed within three (3) months from that date shall not thereafter be the basis of any sanction against any party or persons. (7) "Party" includes a person or agency named or admitted as a party. taking. or taking of any action upon the application or petition of any person. clearance. (2) The records officer of the agency. but nothing herein shall be construed to prevent an agency from admitting any person or agency as a party for limited purposes. (11) "Licensing" includes agency process involving the grant. annulment. CHAPTER 2 RULES AND REGULATIONS Section 3. partnership. in any agency proceeding. relief or its equivalent or denial thereof. or regulation of the exercise of a right or privilege. privilege. immunity. the withholding of relief. restitution. including licensing. approval. or his equivalent functionary. the imposition of penalty or fine.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 (10) "License" includes the whole or any part of any agency permit. whether affirmative. suspension. Filing. membership. exemption or exception. sanction. or properly seeking and entitled as of right to be admitted as a party. association. charter. (5) "Contested case" means any proceeding. order. reimbursement. license. seizure or withholding of property. registration. statutory exemption or other form of permission. privilege. cost. (1) Every agency shall file with the University of the Philippines Law Center three (3) certified copies of every rule adopted by it. . authority. exception. the revocation or suspension of license. including licensing. denial. not of an interlocutory character. (12) "Sanction" includes the whole or part of a prohibition. duties or privileges asserted by specific parties as required by the Constitution or by law are to be determined after hearing. 1. (8) "Decision" means the whole or any part of the final disposition. (3) A permanent register of all rules shall be kept by the issuing agency and shall be open to public inspection. certificate. exemption. of an agency in any matter. (6) "Person" includes an individual. or the taking of other compulsory or restrictive action. the assessment of damages. "Agency action" includes the whole or part of every agency rule.
1922 NATURE Petition for a peremptory writ of mandamus FACTS . The agency shall take appropriate measures to make emergency rules known to persons who may be affected by them. Effectivity.The University of the Philippines Law Center shall furnish one (1) free copy each of every issue of the bulletin and of the codified rules or supplements to the Office of the President. (2) In the fixing of rates. March 29.The University of the Philippines Law Center shall: (1) Publish a quarter bulletin setting forth the text of rules filed with it during the preceding quarter. Omission of Some Rules. pursuant to law. and to other persons at a price sufficient to cover publication and mailing or distribution costs.The Tariff Act of 1913. to export from the Phil. No. no rule or final order shall be valid unless the proposed rates shall have been published in a newspaper of general circulation at least two (2) weeks before the first hearing thereon. each rule shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of filing as above provided unless a different date is fixed by law. safety and welfare. Section 7. Distribution of Bulletin and Codified Rules. Phil. and (2) Keep an up-to-date codification of all rules thus published and remaining in effect. . as far as practicable. Judicial Notice. and the bulletin shall contain a notice stating the general subject matter of the omitted rule and new copies thereof may be obtained. 1.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 made available on application to the agency which adopted it.In addition to other rule-making requirements provided by law not inconsistent with this Book. but copies of that rule shall be OLSEN v ALDENESE 43 Phil 259 JOHNS. Public Participation. Section 9. together with a complete index and appropriate tables. an agency shall. Section 6. 2613 entitled "An Act to improve the methods of production and the quality of tobacco in the Philippine . Islands In 1916. all appellate courts and the National Library. or specified in the rule in cases of imminent danger to public health. The bulletin and the codified rules shall be made available free of charge to such public officers or agencies as the Congress may select.The court shall take judicial notice of the certified copy of each rule duly filed or as published in the bulletin or the codified rules. LIMITS POWER ON RULE-MAKING Section 4. the rules on contested cases shall be observed. Islands into the US cigars which it manufactured from tobacco grown in the Phil. Legislature enacted Act. (1) If not otherwise required by law. (1) The University of the Philippines Law Center may omit from the bulletin or the codification any rule if its publication would be unduly cumbersome. Publication and Recording. Section 8. is punishable as a crime or subject to a penalty shall in all cases be published in full text. . the existence of which must be expressed in a statement accompanying the rule. conferred legal right on Olsen and Co. . publish or circulate notices of proposed rules and afford interested parties the opportunity to submit their views prior to the adoption of any rule. (2) Every rule establishing an offense or defining an act which. (3) In case of opposition. Section 5. . Congress.60 - . expensive or otherwise inexpedient.
" . and Sec. 9 of Administrative Order No. Cir went beyond its authority of rule-making power as limited by law. Preliminary Notes: . marking. marking. Isabela. 9 of the "Tobacco Inspection Regulations.The important question here involved is the construction of Secs.Olsen applied to the Collector of Internal Revenue (CIR) for such a certificate re the 10. 7 of said Act provides: "No leaf tobacco or manufactured tobacco shall be exported from the Philippine Islands to the United States until it shall have been in inspected by the Collector of Internal Revenue. of Philippine cigars to those manufactured from long filler tobacco exclusively the product of the provinces of Cagayan. and 11 of Act No. 35. and packing of tobacco and the standard and the type of tobacco which may be exported to the United States. Reasoning . Portion of Sec. Isabela. 35. 2613 empowers the Collector of Internal . Isabela or Nueva Vizcaya." Portion of Sec. known as "Tobacco Inspection Regulations. HELD YES." The Collector of Internal Revenue then promulgated Administrative Order No. 9 of Admin Order 35. and that they must follow and be within the scope and purview of the act.Analyzing the power conferred. Isabela. and that there is no limitation as to the place where the tobacco should be grown in the Philippine Islands. or Nueva Vizcaya. portion of Sec.9 of the Adm. .S." Despite such refusal. Olsen applied to the Insular Collector of Customs for the certificate of origin.It will be noted that the power of the Collector of Internal Revenue to make rules and regulations is confined to the making of rules and regulations for the classification. Ratio The authority of the Collector of Internal Revenue to make any rules and regulations must be founded upon some legislative act.Clause B of Sec 6 of Act No. The only power conferred is to establish general and local rules for the classification. and that officer wrongfully and unlawfully refused to issue such certificate "on the ground that the petitioner had not obtained and presented with the application the certificate of the said respondent Collector of Internal Revenue. Limting the exportation into the U. Order 35. 11 of the Act requires the certificate of origin of the Collector of Internal Revenue to show that the tobacco to be exported is standard. 35 limits the exportation into the U. 6. and packing of tobacco as may be necessary to secure leaf tobacco of good quality and its handling under sanitary conditions.00 cigars manufactured by it from tobacco grown and produced in the Philippine Islands." promulgated by Administrative Order No. . ISSUE WON the CIR exceeded his rulemaking powers as shown in Sec. and packing of tobacco.Olsen alleged that CIR wrongfully and unlawfully refused to issue such certificate of origin "on the ground that said cigars were not manufactured of long filler tobacco produced exclusively in the provinces of Cagayan.S. . of Philippine cigars to those manufactured from long filler tobacco exclusively the product of the provinces of Cagayan. 2613 of the Philippine Legislature.61 - . It is for such purpose only that the Collector of Internal Revenue is authorized to make any rules or regulations. etc. By Sec. making. or Nueva Vizcaya.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 Revenue to establish rules defining the standard and the type of leaf and manufactured tobacco which may be exported into the United States. and that such power is further limited to the making of such rules for the classification. 7. or to any province. or Nueva Vizcaya is invalid. And. and to develop the export trade therein. it will be found that the provisions of the legislative act are NOT limited to the provinces of Cagayan.
decisions of the Collector of Customs in seizure cases. -TC granted the petition. the Commissioner may order a reliquidation if he believes that the decision of the Collector was erroneous and unfavorable to the Government. may require the Commissioner to order a reliquidation or he may direct the Commissioner to certify the case to the CFI.Petition GRANTED. in view of the fact that it had become final and . that such decisions and their supporting papers be submitted to his office. -Sy Man sought (1) to declare null and void that portion of the Memorandum Order promulgated by the Insular Collector of Customs dated August 18. to be destroyed. and the Department Head in his turn if he believes that the decision of the Commissioner in any unprotested case of assessment of duties is erroneous and unfavorable to the Government. requesting information whether the merchandise may now be delivered to the owner upon showing that the decision has become final and executory after fifteen (15) days from the receipt of a copy of the same by the claimant.. -Counsel for the petitioner requested that the goods be released because of the decision. -Collector of Customs for the Port of Manila responded and said that such was endorsed to the Commissioner of Customs. Supervisory authority of Commissioner and of Department Head in certain cases. 31 Oct 1953 Nature Appeal against the decision of CFI Facts -Collector of Customs for the Port of Manila ordered the seizure of two shipments of textile and a number of sewing machines. Stranahan (192 U. is supported by law Held Yes. Issue WON this supposed power of revision by the Commissioner of unappealed decisions of the Collector in seizure cases. See original. Asking for the execution of the decision. whether appealed or not.62 - . -Let us now see if there is any law giving authority to the Commissioner of Customs to review and revise unappealed decisions in seizure cases. In cases involving assessment of duties. which provides that as in protest cases. and (2) to order the Collector to deliver to the petitioner the shipments of textiles claimed to be final and executory. 1393. even when the importer fails to protest the decision of the Collector of Customs.If in any case involving the assessment of duties *There was a long discussion on the inapplicability of and difference of this case with Buttfield vs. Disposition. SYMAN v JACINTO 93 Phil 1093 Montemayor. and that pending action by him on such decisions. otherwise. S. rendered a decision that the articles covered are delivered to the importer after payment of the necessary customs duty. 1947. sales tax and other charges except the sewing machines which are hereby declared forfeited to the Government of the Republic of the Philippines to be sold at public auction in conformity with law if found saleable. after due hearing. final disposal of the goods involved shall not be made. are subject to review by the Insular Collector (now commissioner). .Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 could no longer be reviewed by the Commissioner of Customs after the lapse of fifteen days from the date of notification thereof was given to the herein petitioner who did not appeal from said decision to the Commissioner of Customs within the aforesaid period of time. consigned to the petitioner (Sy Man). -Sy Man received a copy of the decision of the Collector of Customs for the Port of Manila. "SEC. -Collector of Customs for the Port of Manila. 525).
"Except as in the preceding paragraph provided. the importer shall fail to protest the decision of the collector of customs and the Commissioner shall be of the opinion that the decision was erroneous and unfavorable to the Government. he shall pay to the Commissioner the amount of the fine as finally determined by him. in case of forfeiture. and it is highly possible that up to and until 1947. in the manner provided in section one thousand three hundred and eightysix hereof. The section does not say that without the notice of appeal. Furthermore. in any seizure case. in case of forfeiture. The logical inference is that the lawmakers did not deem it necessary or advisable to provide for this supervisory . the owner or agent shall. shall pay the appraised value of the property. after removal of the cause. -It would seem that in a seizure case. . where the Commissioner observes that in seizure cases some collectors of customs merely submit to him their reports of their seizure and the subsequent final disposition thereof without transmitting the records of their proceedings. or if. or. shall pay the appraised value of the property.If. such property shall be forthwith surrendered. it is not likely that Collectors would disregard and ignore it. direct the Commissioner to certify the cause to the Court of First Instance of Manila. the Collector transmits all the papers in the cause to the Commissioner only when and after the importer notifies him in writing signifying his desire to have the matter reviewed by the Commissioner." We find no similar legal provision in seizure cases. when the memorandum order of August 18th of that year was issued. be erroneous and unfavorable to the Government. and if the decision of the Commissioner in any unprotested case should. then legally. a case of seizure unappealed ends right in the office of the Collector. pay to such collector the fine imposed by him or. "SEC. the Collector is called upon to transmit the papers of the case to the Commissioner. without prejudice of course to the Collector subsequently making a report of his action to the Commissioner." It will be noticed that the section is entitled "supervisory authority of the Commissioner and of the Department Head in certain cases. If that right and that practice had existed from the beginning. while the cause is yet before the collector of the district of seizure. if in his opinion the public interest requires. and all liability which may or might attach to the property by virtue of the offense which was the occasion of the seizure and all liability which might have been incurred under any bond given by the owner or agent in respect to such property shall thereupon be deemed to be discharged. section 1388 of the Revised Administrative Code provides thus:. the supervisory authority of the Department Head over the Bureau of Customs shall not extend to the administrative revisal of the decisions of the Commissioner in matters removable into court.63 - . 1388. and he therein asserts the right of the Commissioner of Customs to review decisions of Collector of Customs in seizure cases though unappealed. If this be true. the latter may order a reliquidation. there to be reviewed by the court as other customs cases removed thereto.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 authority or power of revision by the Commissioner and the Department Head on unappealed seizure cases. Settlement of cause by payment of fine or redemption of forfeited property. the Department Head may require the Commissioner to order a reliquidation or he may. This we may gather from the memorandum order itself. in the opinion of the Department Head. it was not the practice of the Bureau of Customs to have unappealed seizure cases sent up by Collectors to the Commissioner's office for review and revision. to the extent that it was necessary to remind them of it by means of a memorandum order.
section 1378 of the "Redemption of forfeited property shall not be allowed in any case where the importation is absolutely prohibited or where the surrender of the property to the person offering to redeem the same would be contrary to law. . if he desires to test the validity of the proceedings. Again. The argument is not without merit. the conclusion to be drawn is that it is within the power and right of an importer.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 thereafter. then in cases where the Collector in his decision commits a blunder prejudicial to the interests of the Government. This argues against the pretended power of the Commissioner of automatic review and revision of decisions of Collectors in unappealed seizure cases. in a seizure case the owner or agent may. while the cause is yet before the collector. routine cases. is allowed if he desires to test the validity or correctness of the decision of the Collector. make formal protest at the time of making such payment or affecting such redemption. It would seem that the elevation of the case and the transmittal of the papers thereof to the Commissioner lies within the owner's exclusive power and discretion. To protect the Government in such exceptional cases. or in case of forfeiture. he is given every chance and facility to protest the decision and appeal to the Commissioner. Cases of erroneous decisions against the interest of the Government of decisions rendered in collusion and connivance with importers are the exception. The rule is and the law presumes that in seizure cases Collectors of Customs act honestly and correctly and as Government officials. after payment is made or redemption effected. or renders a decision through fraud or in collusion with the importer. owner or agent to end the case in the office of the Collector. although notwithstanding his payment he still has the right to have the case elevated to the Office of the Commissioner of Customs. and that is the reason why when the importer feels aggrieved by their decision. whereupon the proceedings shall take the same course as in ordinary cases of protest against customs duties and charges generally." If under the above provisions.Where payment is made or redemption effected as allowed under the preceding section. to appeal the same to the Commissioner of Customs presumably. common." The importer or owner of goods seized. and thereafter such properties shall be surrendered and all liability which may attach to said property by virtue of the offense causing the seizure is to be deemed discharged. pay the fine imposed. we find that in every seizure case. or within fifteen days . It is argued that if this power of review and revision by the Commissioner of unappealed seizure cases is not conceded. the party making payment or effecting the redemption may. If mistakes are committed at all more often than not they are in favor of the Government and not against it. the Government cannot protect itself. the owner may terminate the case right there.64 - . to decrease the amount of his liability or annul the seizure altogether and have all the amounts paid by him refunded. The inference follows that by making payment and redeeming the property seized under the decision of the Collector of Customs. Right of protest in such cases. always with an eye to the protection of the interests of the Government employing them. under section 1389 immediately following which reads "SEC. and make claim for the repayment of the whole or any part of the sum so paid by him. pay the appraised value of the property. thereby precluding any intervention by the Commissioner in the way of reviewing and revising the decision of the Collector. 1389. but we must bear in mind that the law is promulgated to operate on ordinary.
Upon motion of the accused. order the Collector as his subordinate to withhold action on the seizure.65 - . October 18. and neither the Commissioner nor the Department Head has the power to review. The defect in said section however is that it does not fix the period within which the automatic review and revision or reliquidation to be ordered by the Commissioner and the Secretary of Finance must be effected. prohibiting electro fishing in all Philippine waters. 1947. If the seizure is important or unusual. Godofredo Reyes.Section 11 of the Fisheries Law prohibits "the use of any obnoxious or poisonous substance" in fishing. upon the recommendation of the Commissioner of Fisheries. It may be that this requirement has for its main purpose the recording of and accounting for the articles seized so that in case of confiscation the Commissioner and the Auditor General will know what articles have become government property. and the latter may still influence and direct the Collector's action if he finds occasion for doing so. But the notice will also inform the Commissioner and the Auditor General of the seizure. This defect should be remedied. . It was alleged that they engaged in electro fishing. revise or modify such unappealed decision. Benjamin Reyes.Jose Buenaventura. 841. . and a decision rendered by him.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 But if the Government deems it necessary to provide for review and revision by the Commissioner or even by the Department Head of the decisions of the Collector of Customs in unappealed seizure cases. the Commissioner may. becomes final not only as to him but against the Government as well. the promulgation of his decision until after he had conferred with the Commissioner or the latter had studied the case and given suggestions. . 84 (62 O. In conclusion. not only because it has not been duly approved by the Department Head and duly published as required by section 551 of the Revised Administrative Code but also because it is inconsistent with law.The Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Revised Administrative Code requires the Collector to immediately notify the Commissioner and the Auditor General. Disposition For the foregoing reasons. . or hold in abeyance. 1224). PEOPLE v MACEREN 79 SCRA 450 AQUINO. if he so desires. is void and of no effect. it would seem that any action by him as a subordinate is still subject to the supervisory authority and control of the Commissioner as his Chief. the decision of the Collector of Customs in a seizure case if not protested and appealed by the importer to the Commissioner of Customs on time. We also find and hold that the memorandum order of the Insular Collector of Customs of August 18. the municipal court dismissed the case. we find and hold that under the present law governing the Bureau of Customs.G. within a reasonable time. No pronouncement as to costs. Nazario Aquino and Carlito del Rosario were charged with having violated Fisheries Administrative Order No. promulgated Fisheries Administrative Order No. the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed. the Legislature may be requested to insert a section in the Revised Administrative Code similar to Section 1393 which applies to unprotested cases of assessment duties. At that stage of the proceedings before definite action is taken by the Collector. 1977 FACTS .
declaring the appointment merely voidable and not void ab initio. no prior request for exemption from the provisions of Sec.Public respondent Comelec. 89468 which disposed of the appeal. 1991 NATURE Petition for certiorari Resolution of the CSC from a ISSUE WON Sec. Petitioner officially reported for work and assumed the functions of his office. October 4. which declared Toledo’s appointment void ab initio. petitioner was already more than 57 years old.66 - . 2066. Administrative agents are clothed with rule-making powers because the lawmaking body finds it impracticable. Petitioner appealed the foregoing Resolution to public respondent CSC. Rule III of the CSRPAP is valid HELD NO Ratio The provision on 57-year old persons in the Revised Civil Service Rules cannot be accorded validity. J. since the law does not clearly prohibit electro fishing. to anticipate and provide for the multifarious and complex situations that may be encountered in enforcing the law.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 that effect could have been easily embodied in the old Fisheries Law. issued Resolution No. . The lower court held that electro fishing cannot be penalized because electric current is not an obnoxious or poisonous substance as contemplated in section II of the Fisheries Law. and declaring Toledo a de facto officer from the time he assumed to office to the issuance of Comelec Resolution No. The lower court further held that. At the time of his appointment. Said provision prohibits the appointment of persons 57 years old or above into the government service without prior approval by the Civil Service Commission (CSC). a penal provision to FACTS . 84 HELD 1. the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the Commissioner of Fisheries are powerless to penalize it..Petitioner Atty. YES. However. It is entirely a creation of the CSC. All that is required is that the regulation should be germane to the defects and purposes of the law and that it should conform to the standards that the law prescribes Disposition Decision affirmed TOLEDO v CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (COMELEC) 202 SCRA 507 PARAS. Had the lawmaking body intended to punish electro fishing. As electro fishing is not banned under that law. upon discovery of the lack of authority required under the CSRPAP. Rule III of the Civil Service Rules on Personnel Action and Policies (CSRPAP) was secured. 2066. CFI affirmed. The power cannot be extended to amending or expanding the statutory requirements or to embrace matters not covered by the statute Reasoning The Fisheries Law does not expressly prohibit electro fishing. CSC promulgated Resolution No. Nowhere in the said law is electro fishing specifically punished. ISSUE/S 1. if not impossible. WON the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources exceeded his authority in issuing Fisheries Administrative Order No. 22. . Ratio The rule-making power must be confined to details for regulating the mode or proceeding to carry into effect the law as it his been enacted. 22. Augusto Toledo was appointed by then Comelec Chairman Ramon Felipe as Manager of the Education and Information Department of the Comelec. the executive and judicial departments cannot consider it unlawful.
A certification by the Tax Amnesty Implementation Officer of the fact of availment of the said tax amnesty shall be a sufficient basis for: 1.02. January 20. to carry the law into effect or execution.3. for the taxable years 1981 to 1985. It cannot be related to or connected with any specific provision of the law which it is meant to carry into effect.Prior to this. The request was denied by the Commissioner on the ground that Revenue Memorandum Order 4-87 implementing EO 41 had construed the amnesty coverage to include only assessments issued by the BIR after promulgation of the executive order on 22 August 1986 and not to assessments theretofore made. 1986: EO 41 was promulgated declaring a one-time tax amnesty on unpaid income taxes. It was therefore an unauthorized act of legislation on the part of the CSC. the deficiency tax notice should forthwith be cancelled and withdrawn. Disposition The petition is GRANTED COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v CA (R. It said that the Commissioner failed to present any case or law which proves that an assessment can withstand or negate the force and effects of a tax amnesty.CA affirmed the decision of CTA. petitioner CIR assessed R. not to add to it. FACTS .August 22. business.02. Auto Products availed of the amnesty.H. not to supply perceived omissions in it.O. . It said that a “tax amnesty. Reasoning RA 2260. .H. later amended to include estate and donor’s taxes and taxes on business. contained no provision prohibiting appointment or reinstatement in the Government service of any person who was already 57 years old. partakes of an absolute forgiveness or waiver by the Government of its right to collect what otherwise would be due it xxx” ISSUES having no basis in the law which it was meant to implement. deficiency income and business taxes for its fiscal years ended 30 Sept 1981 and 30 Sept 1982 in an aggregate amount of P1. establishing the CSC and authorizing it to prescribe and enforce rules for carrying into effect the provisions of the law. 1986 for the collection of income. and filed in October 1986 and November 1986 its Tax Amnesty Return and paid the corresponding amnesty taxes due.41 M.O. . This prohibition was purely a creation of the CSC.H. The taxpayer wrote back to state that since it had been able to avail itself of the tax amnesty. being a general pardon or intention overlooking by the State of its authority to impose penalties on persons otherwise guilty of evasion or violation of a revenue or tax law. AUTO PRODUCTS) 240 SCRA 368 VITUG.R.O. . or otherwise requiring that some limitation as regards to age be placed on employment in the Government service.67 - . This burden of proof on taxpayer was created by the clear and express terms of the executive order’s intention—qualified availers of the amnesty may pay an amnesty tax in lieu of said unpaid taxes which are forgiven. The power vested in the CSC was to implement the law or put it into effect. 1. xxx the cancellation/ withdrawal of assessment notices and letters of demand issued after August 21. 1995 NATURE . estate or donor’s taxes due during the same taxable years.Court of Tax Appeals ruled for the taxpayer.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 Petition for review of a decision of the CA.
Ratio All issuances must not override. Aggrieved by the alleged lapses of the DAR and the Landbank with respect to the valuation and payment of compensation for their land.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 LAND BANK OF THE PHILS v CA (Yap) 249 SCRA 149 FRANCISCO. and the Landbank to deposit in cash and bonds the amounts respectively "earmarked". 1995 NATURE Consolidation of two separate petitions for review filed by Department of Agrarian Reform and Land Bank of the Philippines. Neither can it be disputed that such rules and regulates. Petitioners’ Arguments: -DAR: Admin Order No. Reasoning . HELD YES. the compensation must be deposited in cash or in bonds. It did not. 6 (1992) and DAR Admin Order No. CA found the following facts undisputed. 9 (1990). FACTS -Private respondents (Pedro Yap. AMADCOR) are landowners whose landholdings were acquired by the DAR and subjected to transfer schemes to qualified beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (RA 6657). in lieu of depositing in cash or bonds in an accessible bank designated by the DAR. the compensation for the land before it is taken and the titles are cancelled as provided under Section 16(e) of RA 6657. -Landbank: the issuance of the Certificates of Deposits is in consonance with Circular Nos. . assailing the CA decision. 29- 1. 9 (1990) was issued in GADALEJ because it permits the opening of trust accounts by the Landbank. October 6. and to allow them to withdraw the same. WON the position taken by the Commissioner coincides with the meaning and intent of EO 41. The authority of the Minister of Finance (Secretary of Finance) in conjunction with the CIR to promulgate all needful rules and regulations for the effective enforcement of internal revenue laws cannot be controverted. The issuance of the "Certificate of Deposit" by the Landbank was a substantial compliance with Section 16(e) of RA 6657. The executive order has been designed to be in the nature of a general grant of tax amnesty subject only to the cases specifically excepted by it. as well as administrative opinions and rulings. "reserved" and "deposited in trust accounts" for private respondents. DAR and the Landbank merely "earmarked". private respondents filed with this Court a petition questioning the validity of DAR Admin Order No.68 - .If EO 41 had not been intended to include 1981-1985 tax liabilities already assessed prior to 22 August 1986. Heirs of Emiliano Santiago. the law could have simply so provided in it exclusionary clauses. 9 is a valid exercise of its rule-making power pursuant to Section 49 of RA 6657. and sought to compel the DAR to expedite the pending summary administrative proceedings to finally determine the just compensation of their properties. but must remain consistent and in harmony with the law they seek to apply and implement. -SC referred the petition to CA for proper determination and disposition. "deposited in trust" or "reserved" the compensation in their names as landowners despite the clear mandate that before taking possession of the property. 29. ordinarily should deserve weight and respect by the courts. Respondents’ Arguments: -Admin Order No.There is no pretension that the tax amnesty returns and due payments made by the taxpayer did not conform with the conditions expressed in the amnesty order. . which granted private respondents' petition for Certiorari and Mandamus.
Disposition Petition denied for lack of merit. it is the former that prevails. The function of promulgating rules and regulations may be legitimately exercised only for the purpose of carrying the provisions of the law into effect. The power of administrative agencies is thus confined to implementing the law or putting it into effect. and notwithstanding that they have already been deprived of the possession and use of such properties. YES. a grave abuse of power or lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion clearly conflicting with either the letter or the spirit of a legislative enactment. the DAR shall take immediate possession of the land and shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a TCT in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. upon the deposit with an accessible bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds in accordance with this Act. vs. WON CA erred in holding that private respondents are entitled as a matter of right to the immediate and provisional release of the amounts deposited in trust pending the final resolution of the cases it has filed for just compensation. in case of rejection or no response from the landowner. the landowner is deprived of the use and possession of his property for which he should be fairly and immediately compensated. A and 54 of the Land Registration Authority where the words "reserved/deposited" were also used. however. Inc. The immediate effect in both situations is the same. Appealed decision affirmed. It did not. Secretary of Agrarian Reform merely recognized the extraordinary nature of the expropriation to be undertaken under RA 6657 thereby allowing a deviation from the traditional mode of payment of compensation and recognized payment other than in cash. WON CA erred in declaring as null and void DAR Admin Order No. -To withhold the right of the landowners to appropriate the amounts already deposited in their behalf as compensation for their properties simply because they rejected the DAR's valuation. 9 (1990) insofar as it provides for the opening of trust accounts in lieu of deposit in cash or in bonds 2. -Section 16(e) of RA 6657: Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. There is no ambiguity in Section 16(e) of RA 6657 to warrant an expanded construction of the term "deposit". Nowhere does it appear nor can it be inferred that the deposit . NO.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 can be made in any other form. -It is very explicit that the deposit must be made only in "cash" or in "LBP bonds". -It is unnecessary to distinguish between provisional compensation under Section 16(e) and final compensation under Section 18 for purposes of exercising the landowners' right to appropriate the same. Action of an administrative agency may be disturbed or set aside by the judicial department if there is an error of law. HELD 1. ISSUES 1. And in case there is a discrepancy between the basic law and an implementing rule or regulation. 2. Corollary to this is that administrative regulations cannot extend the law and amend a legislative enactment. (e) Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or. -The ruling in the case of Association of Small Landowners in the Phil. dispense with the settled rule that there must be full payment of just compensation before the title to the expropriated property is transferred.69 - . Ratio The conclusive effect of administrative construction is not absolute. for settled is the rule that administrative regulations must be in harmony with the provisions of the law. is an oppressive exercise of eminent domain.
Dumlao. conducted a financial evaluation of the project proposal of private respondent BellTel. v BELL TELECOMMUNICATION PHILIPPINES.The CCAD submitted to Deputy Commissioner Fidelo Q. prayed for the promulgation of the working draft of the order granting a provisional authority to private respondent BellTel. resolutions and decisions of the NTC is lodged in the Chairman. Raulito Suarez. 1997 NATURE Consolidated petitions seeking the review and reversal of the decision] of the respondent Court of Appeals FACTS . NTC Deputy Commissioners Fidelo Dumlao and Consuelo Perez adopted the same and expressly signified their approval -In view of these favorable recommendations by the CCAD and two members of the NTC. no hearing was conducted as the same was reset. . a Memorandum manifesting his findings and recommending that “based on technical documents submitted. Commissioner Simeon Kintanar. the Legal Department thereof prepared a working draft of the order granting provisional authority to private respondent BellTel. Thus. microwave radio. Deputy Commissioners Dumlao and Perez have allegedly no voting power and both their concurrence which actually constitutes the majority is inutile without the assent of Commissioner Kintanar. wireless. the NTC. set the said motions for a hearing however. April 30. INC. validate and promulgate any and all orders. a decision that is concurred in by two of the three members composing a quasi-judicial body is entitled to promulgation. in this case. Mr. operation and maintenance of a combined nationwide local toll (domestic and international) and tandem telephone exchanges and facilities using wire. . Dumlao and Consuelo Perez but was not signed by Commissioner Simeon Kintanar.While ordinarily. BellTel filed a Second Urgent Ex-Parte Motionreiterating its earlier prayer. . since only Commissioner Simeon Kintanar is recognized by the NTC Secretariat as the sole authority to sign any and all orders. BellTel filed a motion. petitioners claim that pursuant to the prevailing policy and the corresponding procedure and practice in the NTC.No action was taken by the NTC on the aforecited motion. on the ground that the said working draft had already been signed or initialed by Deputy GMCR. satellites and fiber optic cable with Public Calling Offices (PCOs) and very small aperture antennas (VSATs) under an integrated system. the exclusive authority to sign. Suarez made the finding that BellTel has the financial capability to support its proposed project at least for the initial two (2) years.Subsequently. resolutions and decisions of the NTC.70 - .” .BellTel filed with the NTC a second Application praying for the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the installation. thus. INC.On the day of the hearing. Mr. and. 7692 was enacted granting private respondent BellTel a congressional franchise . the chief of the Rates and Regulatory .Anxious over the inaction of the NTC in the matter of its petition praying for the issuance of a provisional authority. BellTel’s proposal is technically feasible. -In an Order signed solely by Commissioner Simeon Kintanar. 271 SCRA 790 HERMOSISIMA. .Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 Division of CCAD. private respondent BellTel an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Resolve Application and for the Issuance of a Provisional Authority. . only his vote counts. instead of resolving the two pending motions of private respondent BellTel. The said working draft was initialed by Deputy Commissioners Fidelo Q. .Republic Act No.Agreeing with the findings and recommendations of the CCAD.. JR.
in the first place. Reasoning Memorandum Circulars 11-93 and 3-1-93 are on their face null and void ab initio for being unabashedly contrary to law. No.Petitioners filed with this court separate petitions for review. is not and can never be a ratification of such an illegal practice. ISSUE WON the CA’s act of nullifying NTC Memorandum Circular No.The SC issued a Resolution referring said petition to the respondent Court of Appeals for proper determination and resolution . At the least. Memorandum Circular No.O. these illegal regulations are an erroneous interpretation of E. these illegal regulations are attempts to validate the one-man rule in the NTC as executed by persons with the selfish interest of maintaining their illusory hold of power. Since the questioned memorandum circulars are inherently and patently null and void for being totally violative of the spirit and letter of E. 3-1-93. Mandamus and Prohibition seeking the nullification of the Order . .The Court of Appeals promulgated the assailed decision which set aside NTC Memorandum Circular No. . 1-1-93 and NTC Memorandum Circular No.NTC denied the said motion in an Order solely signed by Commissioner Simeon Kintanar. constitute a majority out of the three commissioners composing the NTC. are without any force and effect. 546 that constitutes the NTC as a collegial body. 31-93 was a collateral attack against the aforecited circulars and an unnecessary and abusive exercise of the court’s power to nullify administrative regulations. as such. . The fact that implementation of these illegal regulations has resulted in the institutionalization of the one-man rule in the NTC. Annex ‘K’ of the Petition and the Order of Kintanar.71 - . At the most. NTC to meet en banc and to consider and act on the draft Order . no court may shirk from its duty of striking down such illegal regulations. No. Annex ‘J’ of the Petition. 1-193.BellTel filed with this court a Petition for Certiorari.Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 HELD NO. Disposition Petitions DISMISSED Commissioners Dumlao and Perez who.O. 546 and in the context of and its predecessor laws. intended to implement. Annex ‘L’ of the Petition and directed . They were nullified by respondent Court of Appeals because they are absolutely illegal and. Ratio Administrative regulations derive their validity from the statute that they were. together.
72 - .Administrative Law Dean Carlota A2010 .
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.